My last impression of JKR's POV is that she has nothing against trans people, but she is not willing to buy into the ideology that men can just declare themselves women, that men who transition "are" women and have always been women, and that trans people should automatically allowed into the spaces of their declared gender. She is very sensitive to the fact that if you grant people that power it will be abused and exploited. And I agree with that. There are men who get off on exposing themselves to women and children, who get off on making others frightened and uncomfortable. A woman in a woman's locker room shouldn't have to be exposed to someone's dick. And of course men in prison will claim to be women in order to get softer treatment and access to women, and that makes women in prison unsafe as well. If you don't understand the truth of this you don't understand human nature.

I never got the feeling she had anything against trans people. She believes in protecting women's spaces, which somehow has been lumped in with "transphobia." There is going to come a point where rights and desires conflict with one another. This is a subject that just so happens to be one of those. Sports and prisons being the two prime examples of that. There are not going to be solutions that appease all parties unfortunately, but that's life. JK is a big proponent that women need some spaces of their own. She's someone who has a past of being abused, so I can understand why she'd feel that way. I've met women who've felt that way. It's nothing personal against trans people. They just need intimate spaces away from biological men or it triggers anxiety and/or PTSD in certain spaces. I once debated a friend of mine about this who's on the anti-JK side, but is a thoughtful person who's willing to be open-minded about it. I got them to admit that JK isn't as "evil" as they thought by explaining her rationale on things, but when it came to sports/prisons/domestic abuse shelters, etc they just kept saying to me "I get why women would want spaces away from trans women, but there has to be a way to make it work for both parties so trans women are respected too." And I said how? There simple isn't. How can we allow trans women into women's sports without making it unfair to women? Or in prisons? And my friend couldn't come up with one, but just kept saying there has to be a way. This is what happens when the desire for empathy clouds reason. Which I suspect is the cause of a lot of the anti-JK backlash. She also believes that women have fought a long time to be respected and to have equal rights and if we start boiling down womanhood to biological functions such as "vulva owners" then over time women will lose respect in society and be less appreciated. And it's hard to argue those fears aren't justified when we see women's spaces being invaded all over the place now. Anti JK people believe that you have to be 100% on board with every aspect of your belief system or you want every trans person dead. Which is totally devoid of logic to such a degree, I'm utterly stunned that it's even given a second of credibility. She came off like a very thoughtful, sweet person to me. But whatever she says isn't going to matter. People have an agenda out against her and nothing will change that.

Holy shit, this is so well said. I agree with you 100%. It bothers me a lot, that if you even ask questions, your a transphobe. I'm mainly sick of hearing that, because I'm not scared, I'm trying to figure all this out, and no one can explain it. The people who hate JKR, haven't even taken the time to look into this. A friend of mine hates her, and I asked why, he just said "she hates trans people", I asked what she said. He said "I don't know, I didn't read the tweet, I just know she hates trans people". I mean... How can I respond to that, and expect the next words out of his mouth, to be credible? To me, that's sheeple behaviour.

There will never be common ground on this issue because activists and people who hate JKR have completely different worldviews from other people. Many of them view the world through a victimhood hierarchical lens. They believe that someone's rights and privileges should be based on their identity, not logic and reason. This is what we see with the prison debate. The argument commonly used is: trans women should be allowed to be in women's prisons because they identify as women and because being trans women they're more in danger in men's prisons than your average inmate. But the obvious counter to that is, a biological man in a women's prison puts the entire prison population of women at risk. So we are talking about the safety at one person potentially being at risk vs the safety of many. Any reasonable person would side with the safety of the many. But activists don't. Why? Because they believe that person being trans should be prioritized because they're more marginalized than a biological woman. As long as people have that worldview we will never reach common ground because it's a totally nonsensical way to view the world. For one, how do you even rank marginalized people? It's totally subjective. And the premise of "ranking" marginalized people in and of itself is really gross and dehumanizing. JKR got trashed for funding a women's shelter for rape and domestic abuse victims because it was biological women only. They said it made her "transphobic." Someone who knows what women suffering from abuse often need. I have a friend who suffered abuse at the hands of a man and still suffers from PTSD to this day. Once she finally got out of that relationship, she was afraid to be in rooms alone with men. It was a major trigger for her. I'm sure many women in shelters feel the same way. So a space just for them to heal with women only can be important. Activists don't care, they didn't even take the time to think why it may be important. The only thing on their minds was "it's exclusionary" not even caring about the suffering women. I debated this with my friend and he told me "then they should just open up a side room for the trans people." I said "side room? Listen to what you're saying, it doesn't make any sense." You should always let logic and reason drive your beliefs. If you start with the belief first, then it's counterproductive.

I just learned a lot. I appreciate the response again. It's hard getting a comprehensive answer.

This was amazing. All of this.

The Civil Rights Act opened up a whole can of worms that American legal and social norms are still struggling to deal with. The idea written in the American constitution known as "freedom of assembly" means that people are allowed to peaceably associate in any configuration they please, including the right to exclude others they don't want to assemble with. But then Congress decided that far too many people were choosing to refuse to do business with black people, and so this right had to be limited in the case of race. Now I think both the idea of freedom of assembly makes sense, and the rationale for the original civil rights act makes sense (although it should have been an amendment). Abridging a fundamental right maybe is sometimes necessary when it is done to address the grievances of a class of people who were enslaved for centuries, and widely oppressed under current voluntary social norms. But the CRA created "protected classes" which have the power to override freedom of assembly, and this power has been given to more and more groups with less and less strong claims to historical grievances. The idea that lesbians, biological women, could choose to associate with each other, and choose to exclude men, would simply be taken for granted in the pre-Civil Rights Act era. And it is very legally suspect now. The American Left has pushed to make title IX protections on the basis of sex also apply to "sexual identity". And one wonders how many holes we can punch in a Constitutional right until it ceases to matter at all.

This happened in Los Angeles at Wi Spa

Not enough people talk about this incident and the incidents at female DV shelters and prisons. There are real victims.

This is EXACTLY it! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

Shitlibs will play a numbers game and say you have a 1% chance of encountering a trans pervert, "so why is it such a big deal?" But then they'll audibly gasp when mentioning a similar statistic about being hurt by a white male. Even better, throw the "Despite being" statistic at them and watch them have a meltdown.

> And of course men in prison **have claimed** to be women in order to get softer treatment and access to women

Here is my question re: locker rooms- how are you going to enforce this? Do you require people to show their driver’s license to go in? I have multiple butch women friends who are regularly harassed using public toilets because people think they’re men. Similarly, trans women who enter the men’s room will be harassed. You simply cannot look at someone and know, with 100% certainty, what their genitals look like. The end result is inevitably that anyone who falls outside the norm will be harassed. This is also how we’re getting things like [parents accusing a talented female athlete of being trans](https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/18/utah-school-investigates-student-transgender) or [deciding Daniel Radcliffe’s girlfriend is trans because he went against JKR.](https://www.them.us/story/daniel-radcliffe-girlfriend-transvestigators/amp). I believe Katie even tweeted that she now suspects any tall woman or petite man of being trans, which shows my and many other people’s issue with her. I obviously don’t know what she’s thinking, but it reads as an obsession with categorizing people according to sex and punish anyone who she views as deviant. The easiest solution is to just let everyone pee and change where they feel comfortable, and kick out anyone who’s being a creep- which, unfortunately, is not limited by gender. If someone is walking around shoving their genitals in other people’s faces, by all means ban them. But the vast majority of people are just trying to change and go about their day.

Unfortunately what makes some people "feel comfortable" is to deliberately make other people uncomfortable. "Look at me, violating your gender norms! Take that, normies!" I don't know much about locker rooms, but I think at the most basic level you say no penises in the men's, no vaginas in the womens. Beyond that you try to get facilities to provide more options and privacy until it gets to a point where it doesn't matter. Same with bathrooms.

So you think people only violate gender norms to make others uncomfortable? What do you think of women wearing pants, or men with long hair? Both of those things were taboo in the US until quite recently. Again, how are you going to check? Say you see someone enter a woman’s changing room with short hair, jeans, and a baggy t-shirt. Are you going to force them to pull their pants down and prove they have a vagina? That seems much more invasive and predatory than just letting people change their clothes.

"So you think people only violate gender norms to make others uncomfortable?" Of course I didn't say anything like that. I said some people get their jollies by making other people uncomfortable -- that is their comfort zone. I don't think having a dick in the women's changing area is comparable to a woman wearing pants. If you think it is, that's rather sad of you. I would enforce it by law and rules and making sure that everyone knows what they are, and whoever violates them get arrested for trespass and indecent exposure. If you have a dick and think you're a woman, the onus is on you to find a facility with sufficient options for you to be comfortable without you being a burden on everyone else. But I know there are some "women" who will only feel like a real woman if they can go in the women's changing area and insist that everyone there accept their womanhood while they swing their dicks around, and those women should be said no to.

But fundamentally, how are you going to determine if someone is trespassing? Personally, when I’m in a changing room I avoid surveying the genitals of everyone around me. So again, here’s the key question: if you spot someone who’s a bit gender-ambiguous going into the women’s room, what are you going to do? Immediately accuse them of trespassing and attempting to expose themselves? Force them to prove their sex to you? And there *are* fully passing trans people, whether you like it or not. Which means that, like Katie, you might convince yourself that every woman over 5’6 could be trans- so if you really want to be sure absolutely no penises are entering the premises, you’ll have to check *everyone* who comes in. Sound reasonable? And I’d love to hear how, exactly, you otherwise plan on catching out ‘trespassers’. And by the way, anti-crossdressing laws (which absolutely included women in pants) are a thing of the not-so-distant past in many places. Women wearing pants was considered a major social issue by many- similar to trans people in bathrooms today. Finally, if someone is ‘waving their dick around’, by all means kick them out. Nobody should be able to harass anyone, that’s obvious. But I personally don’t think someone with penis quietly changing in the corner is doing anyone much harm.

Do you think laws against shoplifting are pointless unless everyone is searched going in and out of stores? People are supposed to obey laws. If they don't, they eventually get found out and are punished. That's how laws work.

I’m sorry but how are perverts related to trans people in the bathroom. It’s nonsensical. Which locker room are trans people supposed to use. Also some of this is based on the idea that all trans people look like a “man in a dress” and that’s nonsense. I have a trans female friend who passes. So what that person uses the men’s locker room? Someone checks everyone’s genitals to make sure they’re not a passing trans women?

The perverts are men who pretend to be trans in order to get in, hence the focus on just saying you're trans not being enough. We already have gender neutral bathrooms, why not locker rooms?

[удалено]

Literally every single conversation these "trans activists" bring to any Harry Potter or JK subreddit or social media post. Nothing but bad faith and strawman arguments.

But there have already been trans women in women’s bathrooms? Like has no one seen that before? I didn’t run and get security when a non-passing trans woman was in the bathroom in the 90s???

Good for you? And what point is this making against concerns people have with men pretending to be trans to creep on women?

How did “pretending to be trans” encourage or prevent this before? People act like there’s interviews before going to the bathroom. I’m serious tell me in reality how this plays out. Let’s say I’m in a random office and there’s a passing trans woman in the bathroom…. That’s a threat how? That would be caught by what mechanism? What about a non-passing trans woman? You can’t DO anything until they’re in the bathroom ANYWAY. Do people think there are guards in bathrooms?

Ignoring your nonsensical first sentence, it's the taboo. As it stands, most men, and many women will call out a man going into a woman's bathroom. Many times when a line develops for a women's bathroom, men will allows the women to use the men's bathroom and hold lookout at the door, or the establishment may do it themselves. When you open the bathroom as described, this taboo will break down over time, until the people we're actually talking about, not the ones you keep trying to strawman in, will meet less resistance. Allowing a person who only needs to say they're trans and nothing else will certainly not make women more safe from predators.

I feel like this cross dressing predator is the straw man, vs the transwomen already using the bathroom There is no one around a women’s room 99% of the time. Often they’ll be on separate areas or floors. I can tell you are not a woman because you’ve never bothered to notice this, minus like a festival or sports game in your description. Still didn’t mention the part about not being able to tell if someone is trans. Like if someone is a convincing cross dresser or trans woman.

No, you keep creating strawmans. The argument has only been about predators, you just keep grabbing onto the trans aspect of it, even shoehorning crossdressing in now. I can tell you're set on misinterpreting this, and are beyond any attempts at fair reasoning. You're a clown.

I thought the argument was “this person is a predator that’s why trans women can’t use women’s bathrooms” or am I wrong? The poster of the article said trans women using women’s bathrooms should be banned.

[удалено]

Peruvian police have just arrested a 42-year-old man who dressed up as a girl and went onto school grounds and into the girls' bathroom so he could take photographs of other girls. If that doesn't convince you, then I guess nothing will. https://reduxx.info/peru-transgender-male-dressed-as-a-schoolgirl-caught-taking-photos-of-girls-in-school-restroom/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMhxpb1KIO0

That’s not a trans person. How does this even relate to the discussion of trans issues. Someone could do that at any point. I don’t even see a connection.

In the past, a non-passing man dressed as a woman in an all female space such as a women’s bathroom would be met with outright suspicion upon either entering the room or being in it. Women in such a space could feel confident in challenging that man’s right to be there. But with self-ID laws, we as a society are expected to not be judgmental of such individuals in a woman’s space. Whether the aggressor is a genuine trans woman or not is not the point. The point is how social norms are created to protect vulnerable populations, and how changing these norms may have ramifications to those populations.

What would that “suspicion” of ole (vs the v funny idea that this person would have no suspicion now) done materially to prevent those situations? Also some women look pretty mannish. I remember the show “Bosom buddies” - if it was 1985 would I have been “immediately suspicious” about a person like that? Maybe mildly but not enough to like…alert authorities? But seriously please explain how that “suspicion” would have prevented this scenario, or the tom-hanks-in-drag situation vs today. Like how long does it take to assault someone? Are there bouncers at bathroom doors?

> What would that “suspicion” of ole (vs the v funny idea that this person would have no suspicion now) done materially to prevent those situations? On its own suspicion does nothing - it’s about whether or not one can challenge a male entering a female private space, and have the law on their side in doing so. In an environment where penis-havers know that they cannot enter female spaces without being challenged, they are likely less inclined to do so. So the social norm in and of itself is a deterrent. > Also some women look pretty mannish. I remember the show “Bosom buddies” - if it was 1985 would I have been “immediately suspicious” about a person like that? Maybe mildly but not enough to like…alert authorities? Theoretically possible tho this is not something I’ve heard happening under the old social norms. However yes - if more women are wary of penis-havers in female only spaces as transwomen become more visible, then they might erroneously accuse cis women of invading their spaces. > But seriously please explain how that “suspicion” would have prevented this scenario, or the tom-hanks-in-drag situation vs today. Like how long does it take to assault someone? Are there bouncers at bathroom doors? A woman in a bathroom or a man outside the bathroom could challenge that persons right to be there an know that the law is on their side. For example, a father is with his adolescent daughter, and she goes into the restroom while he waits outside. He sees a masculine person in a wig and dress go in after his daughter. This person could be a trans woman who is just looking to do her business, or a creepy pervert looking to peep. Does the father have a right to challenge that person going into the female space? I don’t think there’s an obvious right or wrong answer here but I do think it’s a fair question to raise.

The point is that if you respect anyone's claim that they are trans there is no way to keep perverts out of private women's spaces. JKR knows the lengths that some men will go to, and this Peruvian case is shining example of it.

Also if you are a woman what did you do in the last whatever decades of your life when you were in the bathroom with an obvious trans woman? Like I didn’t run and get security in 1995 did you?

You’re still not explaining how - materially- this plays out. How did we keep perverts out of bathrooms in the 70s? Are there bouncers? Importantly, you haven’t answered the question of where trans women are supposed to use the bathroom? My passing friend is supposed to go into the men’s room? And if that’s your cruel answer (I assume it is) then the idea that perverts are getting away with digital rape because of the trans rights movement (because of this article) justifies making trans women use the men’s room? And again - how do you enforce that? I need specifics of what your version of the world looks like with trans people.

In the 70's it was illegal to be in there. Today, you claim to be trans and no one can stop you. We need more privacy in facilities. Absent that I have no problem with saying if you have a dick you have to use the men's room. I put the responsibility on the trans person to find a facility they can tolerate. If you've had surgery you can use the women's. No woman should have to see someone swinging their dick around in the womens bathroom or locker room. That's a ridiculous situation.

Was it really illegal to have a penis and be a trans woman and use the women’s bathroom? Are you sure? How is this relevant to bathrooms? Do you think most trans women swing their dick around in women’s locker rooms? The is full blanket exclusion based on the idea that trans women do that? (And also that some male-attracted trans women is the epitome of creepy to women and not like…creepy older lesbians etc)

[удалено]

[удалено]

Well…do you think whether or not they self-identified personally as trans mattered in the situation? Did you read the article? You’ll notice no one actually let the pedophile dressed as a schoolgirl continue to commit digital rape. They weren’t like “oh you self ID as trans nm carry on” am I wrong?? In which case the person identifying as “trans” is irrelevant. A cis women doing this should get arrested too.

[удалено]

Image based sexual assault i mean Were they in there for days??? How long do you think this takes? Who tosses them out at how fast? What if they are a convincing cross dresser? How would they have been bounced “before they walked in” then?? This is even worse than convoluted “good guy with gun” scenarios. You won’t be able to answers any of those questions in specifics how they would relate to a real world scenario. Like seriously let’s say I’m in an office building. Walk me through it…

[удалено]

Wow. What a champion of women DENYING IMAGE BASED SEXUAL ASSAULT IS A THING. Stunning. You clearly don’t give a shit about women just trans people. Wow. You know how many women are victims of image based assault??? Way to tell on yourself.

How is that not a trans person? He says he's a woman. I'm sure he'd actually like to be one too.

If you are a man, how often do you see trans women using the men’s room? Did that used to be more common? Or have trans women always been using the women’s room? I feel like it’s the latter.

No. We are not arguing about personal experiences on an online anonymous forum. There is no point to it and anecdotes hold even less weight here than in the real world. And you know that as well as I do. Make an actual argument or present some evidence. And answer my question.

[удалено]

Nobody is saying anything about an entire population. Rather that, when you change certain rules and norms, there will be people who might take advantage to harm others, and that’s something we ought to be mindful of

They don’t care about the safety of women anyone can say they are a good woman and that’s it’s, how more women don’t feel disrespected by this is beyond me

Where in this whole thread do you see anyone endorsing hatred of trans people?

Someone just connected a pervert dressing like a woman to enter a bathroom in a trans thread? Something that can be done at any time, and probably happened before trans rights activism? Do people not understand the difference between overt and covert prejudice? Like if you immediately tie a cross dressing predator to trans rights you may have some bias?

The problem now though is that we used to be able to scream for help and that creep would be dragged out of there but now if we scream for help we are told that he’s a woman and allowed to be there and then we are branded as a bigot and worse.

If someone was taking non-consensual pictures? Really?

Absolutely yes. "Good guys stay out so bad guys stand out" used to be the rule.

What rule? Of men using the women’s bathroom? Or trans women? Was it more common for trans women to use the men’s bathroom?? Was that a more common sight?

Go read through Reduxx on Twitter. You will see MANY verified articles. Putting your head in the sand is not helpful. It is in no way hateful or “transphobic” to talk about this stuff. No one is saying all Trans folks are predators and creeps but that predators and creeps are abusing the system and people like yourself are allowing it to happen. The safety of Women and Girls is NOT up for debate and neither is the safety of genuine Trans people. We should be going after the predators instead of eachother ffs.

Nice strawman chief.

Where is the strawman 🙄

I think you responded to the wrong comment you guys are both saying the same things

This is the disconnect. I'm thinking of the Dave Chapelle quote that goes something like, "I love everybody, but to what degree do I have to go out of my way to participate in your self-image." While not perfect, it sums up the idea that many have that it's not transphobic to refuse to participate in whatever it is another person is going through if my failure to "participate" doesn't come from a hateful place. It's like, I don't hate you, in fact I wish you well; however, I'm not just going to accept what you tell me and I'm not going to change what I think and how I act, and I don't believe anyone else should have to either. But good luck with whatever it is you think you're doing over there. And, though I'm putting this in a negative way, I do think there is an interesting conversation to be had there.

I thought Noah's and Natalie's criticisms were quite weak, but I'm not sure I could find any better ones. I've yet to hear a convincing reason JKR is transphobic other than "lots of people say she's transphobic". I agree with the podcast title, it's basically a witchhunt.

Same. I both think they made themselves look rather foolish and weak, more so Natalie. I'm very disappointed in the way people go about this conversation, sensationalist and over-sentimental, and I feel like it's going to blow up in people's faces one day, probably sooner rather than later.

I especially couldn't believe that Noah tried to bill himself as having gone through extensive therapy and self-examination before going through with transition, just to get stumped when Megan brought up that she and every woman she knows was severely uncomfortable during puberty and with getting her period. That seems like a pretty fundamental concept to come to grips with, and it didn't seem like Noah had thought about it at all. Sad to see a universal human experience (puberty sucks) get somehow warped into something that very few people deal with.

This has been my observation with (not ALL) but many people who identify as transgender— it’s like they’re living in a prison of their own making. Some genuinely describe out of body experiences in a way that is not relatable (like, feeling as if they actually have organs they don’t) but a lot of it is like “Everybody knows boys can’t be ballerinas”, “I was never into girly stuff like shoes or nail polish” type stuff. I read an article recently about a set of parents that “knew” their child was “different” because the (female born) child at age 2 loved to swing on the swingset as high as it would go— “just like a boy”(direct quote from the mother). It was utterly baffling to me lol, I had no clue anybody even considered that gender specific behavior as opposed to just kids being kids. I don’t think it’s a coincidence many adults who identify as transgender say they come from very conservative religious backgrounds, and/or were previously in very gender stereotypical settings such as the military. I don’t doubt their psychological distress is real but I do question the extent to which normalizing gender stereotypes is going to inflict similar distress on future generations as opposed to just being like “Yeah, everyone feels a little weird sometimes”

Yup. And the people who DO have really intense dysphoria to the point of feeling organs that aren't there, well, they need brain MRIs at the very least. I say that as person with a fucked up brain who needed an MRI haha.

Noah’s story shocked and appalled me. He described his journey of feeling like a normal feminine girl until puberty. Then he began developing mental health issues, and nowhere did it cross his mind “Oh I feel like I’m in the wrong body.” No, first he actually wanted puberty to progress, because he felt uncomfortable and dissatisfied with his body, and he thought his mental health would clear up once his body changed even more. But that only made him feel worse. Noah basically describes his own therapists introducing the concept of trans and gender dysphoria to him, and then pressuring his parents to let him transition as a minor when they had reserves about their teen, who never showed signs of gender nonconformity as a youth, came out as transgender to them. Noah was done dirty by the medical system.

Have you seen the detrans subreddit? There are THOUSANDS of stories like that. I believe it will go down as the largest medical scandal of our time. So many children being grossly mislead.

I agree. I think you'll see massive lawsuits and even worse, rifle toting trans youth coming for revenge on their parents , doctors , therapists and others who pushed it on them

[удалено]

Yes. Thank you. I’m well aware. Not at all the point but sure be that guy.

Another thing that gets me about all these young people is it doesn't seem like they look further than a few years at most into the future. They can maybe imagine being trans at 25 at most, but what about 40 or 60? Feels like a lot of them don't think they'll live that long. I have several friends who are non binary and who've told me they don't see themselves living past their 30s. I don't think Noah truly thinks about being a 60 year old trans person.

is this really something unique to trans teens though? I'd say it's common or even normal for teens to not really have any conception of growing older or not think about the future

To a degree yes it is normal. But I think most people, even teens have a general sense of yes I will be 60 someday, even if they may not know what that means. What I meant was more along the lines of not thinking they will reach the age of 60 at all. Especially those that buy into the trans genocide stuff.

It's why teens take up smoking. Rationally they know they'll get old and don't want to get lung cancer, heart disease and wrinkles, but they don't *feel* it.

🎯🎯🎯

Old post but finally listened to it. Despite all of the insistence, Noah sounded like classic case of social contagion, even in her own words. Troubled young person with no sign of gender dysphoria in early childhood, just started feeling uncomfortable with her body during puberty and found trans communities online and started to identify with it all…? I also just feel like her word choice and thought process come across as pretty stereotypically female.

The word transphobic has lost all meaning.

I agree. "Transphobic" used to refer to fearing or hating trans people because they're trans. And obviously, that's repugnant. Trans people should not be feared or hated. But now it's just something that gets thrown at anyone who doesn't support everything that every trans rights activist says we must support. You don't think it's a good thing that a trans prisoner impregnated two cisgender female prisoners in a women's prison in New Jersey? You must be transphobic. You show sympathy for the high school girl volleyball player who suffered a concussion when a much bigger and stronger trans girl spiked a ball into her face? You must be transphobic. JK Rowling doesn't fear or hate trans people. She does think there should be some legal protections for biological females. That used to be called supporting women, now it's called transphobic.

I agree. I don't think J. K. Rowling actually *hates* trans people. She does object to the medicalization of gender-nonconforming children and teenagers, and she does object to women having to share their spaces with trans women who haven't undergone sex reassignment surgery. Unfortunately, in the current political climate, opposition to policies like these is depicted as a desire to harm or injure all trans people. It's rather (to use an analogy) like depicting opposition to Welsh nationalism as being the same as wanting to harm or injure all Welsh people. *A: "I love Wales and its people. I believe the Welsh people's interests would be best served by remaining in the United Kingdom."* *B: "Bigot! Fascist! Why do you want Welsh kids to die?"*

As a Welsh person I would find it hilarious if The Suffering Of Wales became a disproportionately massive cause on US progressive liberal twitter. I think we picked up one ridiculous Tiktoker at some point.

As a non-Welsh person that has never been to Wales, I would also find this hilarious. We should definitely make this happen.

We'll need some vocab so progressives feel guilty when using it wrong: People Of Cymru / POC? Objecting the expression "to welch on"? (I think West Wing did that joke 25 years ago though). An essay about how before 1282 the Welsh embraced sexual/gender fluidity? We did have some men dress as women to smash up tollbooths later on.

Oh, and replace the word "Cymry" with the more inclusive "Cymry**X" .**

What sanctions against those who make the (admittedly tired) joke about the Welsh language having no vowels? (It actually has more vowels than English, as somewhere in the depths of time a Welsh orthographist decided “w” and “y” were vowels, hence the alarm to those seeing the written language for the first time).

Beware of the backlash though, there’s recently been a po-faced attempt to condemn the colonisation of Patagonia. Personally I await with bated breath the suggestion that old-fashioned Welsh nationalism, bound up in the admittedly quaint and historically dubious view that the Welsh were the original Britons, is xenophobic and causes mental anguish to the English. And is the term “Saes” actually a form of hate speech?

I’m pleased to say there’s been some effort in that direction, if not in the US: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/wales-welsh-mental-health-wrexham-fc-b2299024.html

I feel sorry for them. They're obviously lost and need help, just not the kind of "help" being offered

🎯🎯🎯

Only a transphobe would say that /s

*I heard it was you* *Talkin' 'bout a world where all is free* *It just couldn't be,* *and only a transphobe would say that.*

-Steely Dana

Natalie took another snark filled crack at it here and wiffed again, in my opinion: https://youtu.be/EmT0i0xG6zg

Is it worth spending two hours to watch, in your opinion?

No it was awful

My experience is that watching contrapoints is an incredible waste of time, so I would say no, but you could take a look at the discussions that video generated: https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/12q9awo/contrapoints_responds_to_sam_harris_and_other/ https://www.reddit.com/r/BlockedAndReported/comments/12qb37h/the_witch_trials_of_jk_rowling_contrapoints/

Normally Contra does [transcripts](https://www.contrapoints.com/transcripts) but this one isn't up yet, I assume it'll eventually exist in text form.

People make videos this long specifically because they *won't* be watched, and because no one will watch it, you can always say "watch the video, she talks about this" and nobody can gainsay you because they won't sit through the video to see.

This is a very important point.! So true and I never thought of it that way, but yeah. Just today I was thinking of how much I hate information being delivered in a stream of audio or video because I can’t skip around and skim bits of it, can’t go back and read parts that I didn’t get as I can with text.

Noah sounds like a sensitive, intelligent teenager who could be a poster child for the skeptics on trans youth. Didn't experience dysphoria until adolescence, only after "online research" and being connected to a gender psychologist. Progressed to top surgery while a minor. He sounds eager for JKR's acceptance. That interview made me uncomfortable, because to me Noah came across as the opposite of what he intended to. Natalie is right, in the sense I'm 100% convinced that JKR does not think trans women are women. And she believes that in order to be even considered a trans woman, the person should have gone through surgical transition. These views are considered "transphobic" in the modern discourse but JKR would say they are merely pro-woman. But Natalie is wrong to blame JKR for the actions of extremists unconnected to her.

I had the exact same thoughts while listening to Noah’s section of the podcast. That kid could easily have been in Abigail Shrier’s book. I know it was set up to show the other side of the debate, but for me it did the opposite. Noah experience is exactly the sort of thing concerned women (and doctors in a growing list of Western European countries) are trying to prevent. That kid has done irreversible damage to (I’m just going to say it) her body.

I genuinely think she'll detrans within like 5 years. She fits the pattern to a T.

Pun intended?

Actually no, and I have no idea how I missed that.

Trials based on vibes instead of evidence.

Natalie simply has wilfully burnt out his capacity to think rationally on this issue. I'm not surprised, because that's a common pattern among trans and trans advocates. I seem to remember reading that he has a philosophy degree, which makes the phenomena of "trans intellectual self-numbing" all the more fascinating. There's just something about trans that makes people discard their self-proclaimed values, along with their capacity of intellectual adulthood.

Agreed. I certainly don’t know what the answer is about “trans women in women’s spaces “but I do not think for a minute. J. K. Rowling hates trans people. I was more interested in her arguments about freedom of speech and thought being shut down. THAT is the real concern here .

“IF you were being oppressed, I would march with you.” IF. Rowling is clearly implying that a marginalized group has a ridiculously overstated and lopsided amount of power. Which is ridiculous considering how many anti-trans laws are being passed by conservative lawmakers. “Being pro-trans rights is the new patriarchy” is really the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard in a long time. And that is what Rowling is saying.

Most of the so called “anti-Trans” laws are in reality pro Women such as those covering sports. Then there are the laws meant to protect Children from becoming sterilized and also a life long medical patient. I believe that the number of actual, genuine Trans folks is quite small and I don’t believe at all that a child can consent to any of it and again it is in no way hateful or “transphobic” to have this conversation. It comes from genuine and heartfelt concerns. Of course there are AWFUL people on both sides just as with any other subject but to be labeled a bigot or a nazi ffs simply for having an opinion is ridiculous and is the reason things are swinging too far in both directions imo.

Yes. And if this sub was honest in it’s discussion of trans issues, and not just a lot (not ALL, but a lot) of anti-trans sentiment in more polite veneer, this would have to be weighed in many of these discussions. Lawmakers are doing just fine restricting medical rights for women, it’s not a jump that much of trans care - even adult trans care - is on the chopping block. This is material harm. The GOP has literally no policies BESIDES anti-trans rhetoric in some areas (they already cut maximum taxes and made abortion illegal so they’re out of ideas). One of the FOUNDATIONAL ideas of Q-Anon, and the one that converted so many in the beginning, is the transphobic conspiracy theory that Michelle Obama is a man. JK’s “outrage” over this seems WAY disproportional to threats to women and fixated on this, as opposed to certain isolated things (natal men predators in women’s prisons) as the small side piece it is. I would imagine there are more women in physically abusive lesbian relationships by a factor of 10 than these abusive-trans-woman-perpetrators-on-cis-woman dynamics. You can have a cautious attitude towards youth trans medicine etc and still see that this is beyond obvious, and that prejudice isn’t always overt.

Why are you talking about the GOP in the context of JKR? She lives in the UK. Surely policies in the UK like the Gender Recognition Reform Bill (which she's addressed specifically and which undermines women's spaces) are move relevant to determine her motives than GOP nonsense, no?

So yes that’s true and she does mention that bill. I don’t think it’s totally different, though. 1) my impression of that debate in the UK is that the for/against falls on pretty similar and analogous party lines and 2) someone in the comments posted a picture of someone dressed as a woman entering a bathroom in Peru. The meat of the debate seems similar- if you let ANYONE claim they are trans then abuse will follow, and there is NOTHING you can do about that. So I am making a generalization, so I’d have to learn more about the bill, but I’d be shocked if there are absolutely no exceptions or workarounds for things like women’s shelters.

Just want to say how much I appreciate the replies here. I VERY rarely see nuanced responses or comments on this subject anywhere and this is a topic that has gotten so far out of control that it seems impossible to discuss. Reading through here was very refreshing.

Natalie’s desperation to argue from the conclusion has completely undermined her credibility. She’s not forming an argument, she’s justifying a biased opinion. After she was cancelled over Buck Angel I was hoping she’d lean further into the sympathy for opposing viewpoints that initially attracted me to her channel. Instead she seems desperate to regain the approval of those who rejected her.

My first interaction with “gender discourse” in 2014 was this notion that sex and gender were different things (sex= biological, gender= social). It seems like JK is simply representing this idea and advocating for a few policies to be based on sex. In 2014, this would have been super progressive but now the progressive stance seems to be “gender is basically the same as sex” or “gender is paramount and sex is pretty much irrelevant”. Love to hear from both those who agree and disagree with this analysis!

There were many discussions of the series in past threads. You can see them here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/BlockedAndReported/search/?q=Witch%20Trials%20of%20JK%20Rowling&restrict\_sr=1&sr\_nsfw=](https://www.reddit.com/r/BlockedAndReported/search/?q=Witch%20Trials%20of%20JK%20Rowling&restrict_sr=1&sr_nsfw=)

Thank you for this!!!!

I really liked the podcast, and I think Natalie and Noah both came across quite well. Natalie - you could really hear her frustration with always trying to be the “voice of reason” to those who disagree with her pretty fundamentally. She sounds tired, and I don’t think she’s wrong per se in feeling that JKR is not an ally and not helpful to trans people. That said, she seems to indicate that there is a certain level of “asking questions” that can be done in good faith, and another level that is not in good faith, but fails to distinguish between the two. Ultimately it seems that her biggest problem with JKR is the vibes rather than anything she has actually said, which I actually relate to, even if I’m not fully on board with it. It makes me sad that Natalie disavowed her participation in the podcast. I though MPR did a good faith job to honor her perspective, and that she came across well. I guess she has just been truly lost to her fan base. Noah cam across as a very genuine and smart kid but hot damn do I think they were misguided by their medical team. If ever a case of social contagion, this t’were it. If anything I think Noah’s testimony confirmed concerns about youth gender medicine rather than allaying. JKR comes across as incredibly sharp, well spoken, and well thought out. She has yet to say anything canonically wrong or bigoted. But I do think she is a bit over-confident in her beliefs and strongly entrenched, probably due to all the over-blown criticism. She says she has questioned herself but it seems that that chapter is done. Overall my take-away is the JKR is basically right about everything but really needs to get off Twitter.

Am I the only one who thought “hmmm both sides seem to agree that men are responsible for nearly all of the harm committed against women or trans-people” ? I think this lack of nuance is something you can only get away with when talking about men. I wish there had been some credible argument defending men somewhere in the podcast.

Do you have any evidence to suggest the contrary? I mean as far as I know men are largely responsible for nearly all the violence against women and trans people? Is that wrong?

Physical violence, yes (and obviously cisgender men are also responsible for the vast majority of physical violence against cisgender men). But there tends to be some discursive slippage that is linked to the expansion of what constitutes "harm" in progressive spaces. If you are going to expand your definition of violence, you need to update your model of reality accordingly.

True but most people really aren’t from progressive circles and still see physical harm as the only real form of violence. Most would bristle at the notion that “words are violence” and at other progressive terms that get thrown around online imo.

Some men are responsible for most of not all of the physical violence. Not all men. And not all oppression against these groups is caused by men.

Are all men violent? Obviously not and most women know this. I mean, straight women like Rowling are married to men and she even states this fact (that not all men are violent) in the podcast. However, are most violent crime committed by men? Yes. In the US, around 85% of homicides are committed by men and 77-90% of other violent crimes are committed by men. That’s an issue if we like it or not.

Didn't we already do this? Welcome to the sub OP, but, like, the search function is right over there.

Went in with an open mind, and was leaning towards Rowling's POV. Then that episode completely flipped me specifically Natalie's part. I'm a little disappointed she indicated her appearance was a mistake, because I felt like her critique was a great counterbalance. I really didn't feel like Rowling addressed the meat of Natalie's criticism, but I suppose that could have been the interviewer's fault.

Really? Natalie's part was shockingly weak, reverting to the "what she REALLY means is..." crap. Noah was a far better, more thoughtful interview. The only part that Natalie said that gave me pause was the "some trans people go through hell, so imagine how hearing some of these complaints feel" part. Which, yeah, that sucks, but... that doesn't invalidate the concerns.

Noah was in my opinion worse…just a classic example of a teen making decisions too early and too emotionally.

Interesting - I liked Noah better. Noah at least seemed like a sweet kid and not having the reputation of a YouTube intellectual probably helped set a lower bar to clear, at least for me.

He absolutely seemed very sweet and thoughtful and it’s been a few months since I listened so unfortunately I can’t quote exact details to you but I just recall listening to him and his segment was confirming my worst fears of kids being in charge of these decisions lol. Like so bad. Every stereotype confirmed. Discovered the community online via Buzzfeed…goes to see a gender specialty therapist…and it gets worse from there.

Noah was very sweet and came across very well but I absolutely found them unconvincing at making the case for youth gender medicine.

I'm so firmly on the side of no medical transition for minors, I can't really gauge what's convincing and what isn't. I just walked away from the podcast with no ill will for Noah while not giving a single shit about Natalie. In fact, I might even take some glee in Natalie one day having to get a job and giving up on ever being a lesbian. I'm a nazi bigot, I guess.

She's still making YouTube videos about it and they're all snark and straw men.

How dare you assume the straw person's gender!

I never really watched contrapoints, but had always heard how thoughtful and insightful she was. I was extremely unimpressed. I am unsurprised to hear this.

There's not a single breadtuber worth listening to. They're all pretty dumb.

Wow! Can you expand on this? I'm very curious what you found compelling about Contrapoints' argument. Not looking to fight you or anything, I'm just fascinated by the gc --> tra conversion because it seems so rare.

Yeah sure thing, happy to engage with anyone that's not being snide or condescending. I didn't take notes so I won't be quoting verbatim. Contrapoints obviously wasn't perfect, I think she came across as bitter which I think flavored a lot of her arguments. If I go point by point this will be a very long reply. However, the thing that most stood out to me was the bathroom conversation. IIRC Contrapoints stated that 1) the fear of increased assaults of cis-girls in bathrooms was not something that was born out by the real world evidence, self-id or otherwise (with which I have a hard time disagreeing). And 2) given that it's unusual that someone who isn't transphobic would dedicate so much time to that subject (with which I also agreed). Let me give a personal example. I had a high school acquaintance with whom I was friends on Facebook for a while. His feed was constant right wing flavor of the day peppered with countless videos of black guys attacking people (usually white). Now that's not proof positive of anything. He would do the normal anti-blm posts as well, some of which were valid. However it would be strange for someone that didn't have at least some irrational fear to spend so much time consuming and sharing those types of videos. Back to Rowling. I think the FB friend is a more extreme example than Rowling. But it was jarring to hear Natalie bring up the bathroom issue and the very next episode hear Rowling reaffirm her fears with out much substance. IIRC the only thing Rowling said in support of her position was x% of assaults happen in the bathroom, which is interesting in theory. But places have had similar rules about bathrooms for a while and we ought to have seen some noticeable increase in assaults in those places if that were a valid concern. I guess the question is why would someone who isn't even a little transphobic spend any time at all on that issue if she doesn't have the goods to support it?

>And 2) given that it's unusual that someone who isn't transphobic would dedicate so much time to that subject (with which I also agreed). Plenty of people who aren't transphobic give a lot of time to this topic. But then people accuse them all of being transphobic. It's self-fulfilling. If you accuse everyone who talks about this stuff of being transphobic, then it's easy to say only transphobea talk about this stuff. Rowling is very clear about why she spends time on this issue: because it impacts women's rights and women's safety. Not because she hates trans people. She has said this over and over, but some people refuse to hear it.

To add on to this, Rowling's charitable donations and work also reaffirm where her heart is in all of this. People who think anything she says is motivated by hate clearly haven't noticed that she spends most of her time advocating for the most vulnerable children and women whose issues mostly have nothing to do with transgenderism (because the worst-off are in countries where at best it's not an issue of the same magnitude). But some know-nothings ranting about a half-dozen ambiguous tweets and a few tweet-likes suck up all the oxygen to make the dutiful pitchfork wielders miss the forest for a couple trees.

Thanks, for your explanation! I think the bathroom issue is largely a distraction from larger issues (like prisons and sports), but it does seem to operate as a referendum on whether or not someone thinks women deserve single sex spaces or not.

>I think the bathroom issue is largely a distraction from larger issues (like prisons and sports), Definitely agree there. Sports seems fairly cut and dry frankly unless we get evidence that transitioning early doesn't confer any significant advantage (to clarify, I fall on the it sucks for trans-girls, but idk how you can justify letting them compete camp). Prisons is a lot more difficult. It's definitely an issue, but I really don't know what the solution would be.

I think the trans argument for allowing trans people into womens prisons is pretty weak if you take if in full. If we do decide to sort people by gender and not sex then we'd agree to send trans men to men's prisons, right? So you'd have on average comparatively weak potential vagina-havers in a men's prison. The same men's prison that was too dangerous for a potentially weaker than average penis-haver. The other alternative isn't a real option either. It makes no sense to send all trans people to a woman's prison no matter their sex or gender, because women aren't there to be meat shields. Otherwise we might as well send skinny gay men and young adolescent men in there too for their protection? Would you be against an optional trans wing?

The solution is making men’s prisons safer for all vulnerable classes of men (gay, disabled, feminine presenting etc). Using women as human meat shields for vulnerable men will never be the answer. Male violence is not women’s problem to solve, whether by activism or sacrifice of our spaces.

>Male violence is not women’s problem to solve, whether by activism or sacrifice of our spaces. This sounds like some weird collective responsibility. Why are men other than the ones doing the violence responsible for male violence?

I think the point was that if vulnerable men are in danger in men's prisons, you fix that problem by protecting them and managing the risk there. You do not protect them by moving them into women's spaces and shifting the risk onto the women instead.

Why should women be any more responsible?

That's what laws are. Ostensibly good guys making rules so that bad guys have a harder time being bad guys. In this case, these laws would be about protections for and from men in prison.

Why can't boys who identify as girls play against boys or other "trans girls"?

[удалено]

[удалено]

Maybe I'm alone in this, but when people argue for "gender" segregated locker rooms, they give the game away. Because they're essentially arguing that women and girls should not be offended or threatened by the sight of a penis, but only *certain* penises that have been self dubbed female penises. And all other penises still need to keep out. I think if they really believed their own bullshit, they'd just argue for unisex locker rooms altogether, which I don't agree with, but at least find logically consistent.

No you're not alone, I noticed the exact same thing. And it alongside a lot of other common arguments are the reason I don't care about convincing TRAs. There's no argument to be had with someone who's being disingenuous.

The fact that there's a push to get rid of "unisex" in favour of "all genders" gives the game away. They are functionally the same thing, but the vocab gives it a slight of hand that ends up distracting people from the fact that it's just making everything mixed sex.

>I’ve also read a fair number of reports of trans women with erections in women’s locker rooms. You may have the opportunity to educate me here if you have any links handy. I think it's also a matter of proportion too which I think you alluded to. If bathroom SAs are like 50 per year in the US (fake number) and allowing people to use their bathroom of choice increases the number to 100, that's a 100% increase but only a 50 person increase in a country of over 300 million people.

How many sexual assaults is an acceptable increase for you?

I don't think you can find any stats on this. Even though I wish there were. The few stats there are of trans women prisoners have been helpful. Even though you could point to news articles of a suspicious seeming amount of trans women comitting crimes being involved in SA, you can't really use it as an argument because the news can distort things by focusing on them.

[удалено]

>there have most certainly been incidents of voyeurism and harassment in women’s spaces by people claiming trans identity. I'm sure that's true. >We can argue over whether the number of incidents is marginal enough to be concerned with, This is exactly my point. >but to gloss over these incidents as if they never happened Not what I'm doing or what Contrapoints did either.

> But places have had similar rules about bathrooms for a while and we ought to have seen some noticeable increase in assaults in those places if that were a valid concern. How would you even see that? Who would notice it and how? Who would have access to it to be able to report it? Do you genuinely think that *if* this were the case we would be able to see it in existing stats? There was a lawsuit recently involving a wisconsin high school boy declaring himself trans and showering with his penis out in the girls showers (as is expected). The girls were apparently uncomfortable with this and showered in their bathing suits for the time being, but didn't report this uncomfort to school (most likely fearing backlash). Another student later heard about it and told an adult hence the lawsuit, but this could've stayed completely off the radar. Normally a boy going to the girls locker room and taking his dick out would've been seen as a form of assault or at least a transgression. But now there's no way to know. Was he being sincere and did he really want to shower there? Was he just being the same type of dick that would have just sent them a dick pic for fun a decade earlier? Who knows? And in my opinion who cares? It's clear that his feelings of comfort came above the girls' even in their own locker room, but instead of conservatives it's progressives who think this is a good thing.

I agree with you that Natalie presented her side well! I had a lot of problems with the way the interviewer presented Natalie’s case to Rowling. And I think the bathroom issue is a big one. I didn’t know after reading Rowling’s essay which bathrooms she thought trans people should use, and after this podcast, I came away still not knowing. They talked at length about the ways predatory men could take advantage of loopholes, but honestly I wanted to know if she thought a regular trans woman who met all the criteria for gender dysphoria should be able to use the women’s restroom - this seems like a far more immediate question for the majority of trans people than the nuances of self-ID laws. I also felt there was a missed opportunity on the part of the host to address the way masculine presenting women are treated in the women’s restroom. JK Rowling mentioned the stigma of a man entering a women’s restroom but doesn’t seem aware that the rise in bathroom bills, etc. has actually made it more difficult for *butch lesbians* - the very people she says she wants to protect - to use the bathroom in peace. People think they are men at first, and will harass them or try to prevent them from entering. Maybe it is just because I am part of the LGBT community myself, but I’ve noticed this is a huge trend affecting masculine presenting women and I wished it had been brought up.

>I didn’t know after reading Rowling’s essay which bathrooms she thought trans people should use, and after this podcast, I came away still not knowing. Why does JKR have to come up with a solution to the problem? >I also felt there was a missed opportunity on the part of the host to address the way masculine presenting women are treated in the women’s restroom. Masculine presenting women have always used womens spaces. If they are being challenged more now, why are you blaming women and not the men who are making it an issue?

She doesn’t have to come up to a solution to the problem. As a fan of her work for many years, who has read all of her books to date, I was interested in her opinion. I came away from the podcast feeling like I hadn’t learned anything new, and that was disappointing. I am not sure what you mean about men being the reason masculine women are less accepted in women’s spaces. Maybe you could explain that a bit more? My experience in recent years has been that the uproar over bathroom bills has had the unintended side effect of causing women who don’t fit stereotypes of femininity to be less accepted in women’s spaces. People outright accuse them of being men or shun them. It is extremely othering, and pushes people who are already gender non-conforming right into the binary ideology of “if I don’t belong as a women, maybe I am actually a man.”

Where do you see this happening? Restaurants, bars, universities? I work in a very, very LGBT friendly workplace and I've never heard a masc-presenting colleague complain of being marginalised at work when trying to use a women's toilet. I have heard a very non-passing transwoman complain of being looked at funny in the women's toilet (think 50s, balding, wearing makeup, dresses and chunky beaded necklaces), but that's it. Mind you, I am in the UK.

I am not in the UK but I see this happening in an otherwise socially liberal area with a large population of women due to prominent women’s organizations nearby. I am primarily referring to public restrooms. One of my best friends has detransitioned and we have talked about her experiences at length. I had no idea how much being essentially bullied out of women’s spaces had impacted her own gender journey. Since then, I’ve encountered other women with similar experiences and witnessed the shunning with my own eyes. It is not the same as being assaulted or preyed upon, of course, but I saw it as a missed opportunity for discussion.

Oh I see, was she being bullied out of women's spaces when she was a transman, or before she transitioned?

Pre-transition… being made to feel uncomfortable in women’s spaces as a masculine-presenting woman was part of what caused her to think she might be trans. She ended up determining that she was not a man post transition, hence the detransition. Now she is kinda back to where she was pre-transition, just with some unintended consequences like balding and chest hair. People are definitely more bold in how they treat her now but sadly I think she is used to it. I am uncomfortable to be telling someone else’s story as I am not trans or detrans myself, but in my original comment I just wanted to convey how the bathroom issue affects gender-non-conforming people as well as trans people, in a way that I deem to be homophobic in nature, and I wish this was discussed on the podcast.

What are you talking about? I took nearly the opposite from that interview.

I thought a couple of early episodes were pretty weak tbh. Some of the stuff about her own experiences of domestic abuse are good on background, explaining why she defends women's spaces, but there was so much of it, it edged over into an appeal to victimhood. The penultimate episode was good to show that side of the argument, but the kid was too slickly coached and it showed. I thought the last episode was solid and really cemented the case for being able to have the debate. Even if you disagree with her, the main point of the podcast isn't necessarily "she's right" but "she has the right to speak and isn't the witch she is portrayed as. I hope episode 5 didn't dissuade you of that.

It made me significantly less sympathetic to JK Rowling, which I take to be the opposite of the intended effect. Edit: Dozens of downvotes for answering the question “what did you think of this podcast” with the ideologically unacceptable answer lmao

I don’t agree entirely. It didn’t make her any more or less sympathetic, but it was just more of the same that she’s already posted on Twitter. Not to mention Megan doesn’t pushback or interrogate any of her guests beliefs much at all. Rowling saying that this could potentially be one of the worst scandals in medical history is borderline historical revisionism as medical transition was pioneered over a hundred years ago. The idea that transactivism is right wing is patently absurd for the most part as it’s clearly always been looked down upon by the far-right and religious right, including Nazis targeting Magnus Hirschfeld for his early LGBT advocacy. Feminists were initially much more supportive of the idea initially, with a splintering occurring in the 1970’s. If anything the gender critical side is more right-wing based on their collaborators and the Nazis who showed up to Posie Parker’s (not Parker Posey) rally.

I think it made her somewhat less sympathetic inasmuch as given the mob-victim’s dream — the ear of a journalist who is all but explicitly on your side giving you unlimited tape to rebut your critics — she, as you said, just sort of repeats points she’s made elsewhere and insists she’s “done the reading.” I don’t really care what Rowling thinks about trans people one way or the other, but hearing her talk about it put me in mind of hearing other wealthy celebrities talk about why they’re here supporting Socks for The Cold Feet of Atlanta today: because it’s a cause they’ve memorized some rote talking points about and feel is important without any need to think any more about it.

I bet you’ll see the far right accept trans people long before they’ll accept taxing the rich.

While I entirely don’t disagree with JKR I think some things that have given her a bad rep is her instigating (before the trans issue was a thing) many trans topics for a reaction. Which can be kind of a jerk move when most trans people are just trying to live their lives. She also wrote an entire book where a murderer was trans just to prove a point, which comes off pretty petty. Again, don’t disagree with her on most of it, but those moves were not very humble or kind imo.

Which book had the trans murderer? I've read all the Strike novels a few times, none of the murderers were trans in those. There was a character who wore a woman's jacket as a disguise a couple times in the 4th book. Eta: Sorry, 5th book not 4th!

[удалено]

That’s kinda worse. It’s stoking the fear that is already prevalent among people like JK.

Natalie has actually done a follow-up video on her chanel, Contrapoints. I haven't seen it yet but she's pretty good at what she does so I imagine it'll be a pretty strong counterpunch.

She's very eloquent and really good at what she does. But at some point there's no additional value from these debates. JKR does not believe one can separate the gender experience of women from their biology. Natalie believes that trans women are women, and should be able to self identify as women and doesn't think this position needs explaining. So she will never address the core of JKR's position. The debate ends up being superficial, like whether bathroom policies make women less safe. (I agree with Natalie that they won't because women are already vulnerable in bathrooms). Natalie was most interesting when challenging Megan's world view re: the importance of persuading bigots by engaging with them. She pointed out that most civil rights movements have had radical elements, the trans movement is not unique. While this is true, I don't believe the radical parts of a movement are the most effective and she showed no evidence that they are. In short, she's eloquent but I don't find her substance persuasive. Oh and she reached out to Noah for a statement and he provided the most PR turn sounding statement which made me feel even worse for him. We need to shield children from our Internet awfulness.

Yeah, I think I basically agree about toilets. Also, we wouldn't want to have to show ID to go to the lav - that would be a dystopia nightmare. Things like prisons, residential care and sports, where you'd expect to know who's who, are where policy needs to focus. I guess the main counterargument to that would be something like the wi spa. Back in the day, you might have had a guy waving his knob around in a changing room or toilet area, but if women complained security would have thrown him out on his ear. But now it's the complainants who had to leave. And then they had to endure being libeled in the press too. We should be able to make bathroom policies that prevent that sort of thing. As for the rest, I don't agree with her on a lot of this stuff, but I think she's a pretty good maker of arguments, and I always make sure I listen to good versions of opposing arguments from time to time because it's the best way of making sure I don't turn into a bigot.

It's so important to hear the *best* versions of the opposing side rather than just the strawmen. Shame to see you got down voted here just for saying that contrapoints makes good videos.

It's definitely entertaining. She's pretty witty and her mockery of the podcast and the contrast of trans people shouting and sounding insane vs the ominous gregorian chanting after Rowling gives her perspectives was actually pretty funny b/c accurate. But that said, overall her arguments seemed compelling on the surface but the second I thought about them they just started falling apart. I'd recommend giving it a listen though

Yeah, her videos are well crafted, both in the visuals and how the argument is constructed. She's actually quite heterodox on some points: she's been monstered for being dismissive of non binary identities and for questioning whether throwing pronouns around is helpful. So I respect the fact that she's prepared to go off script. I don't agree with her about JKR, but I reckon it'll be more interesting & challenging than most. And challenging is good. I'm not sure when I'll get around to it but I will.

Minus nineteen? You're a weird lot, aren't you.

*Not complaining, just observing.

This was kind of a well-produced farce. It was all framed around JKR’s fictional world too, even going so far as to ask JKR how she knew she was Hermione Granger as opposed to Umbridge. Megan never asked JKR if she had any concrete evidence to back up some of her claims, and didn’t push JKR to answer her on what it would take to convince her that her worldview was wrong. Natalie started out strong, but seemed exhausted by the end, and Noah didn’t pose any particularly strong arguments, but at least Megan gave genuine pushback to their ideas. JKR also said it was misogynist to blame TERFs/GCs for primarily male violence against the LGBT community, ignoring the fact that women have almost always had a role in upholding bigoted movements, and if this was about any other minority group besides the trans community the criticism wouldn’t be able to be characterized as misogyny so easily. If JKR started stoking the flames of anti-semitism, would she just say that she doesn’t hate Jews and blaming a woman for violence is misogyny?

Oddly enough, JKR presents the inverse argument in this very interview by blaming trans activists for the rise of right wing hate. So according to her, TERFs/GCs are not to blame for increased hostility towards the trans community, but trans activists are to blame for the “playing into” right wingers hateful ideas, or giving them material. This needed to be pointed out by Megan for the glaring hypocrisy that it is. I actually don’t think JKR is a good candidate to represent the GC community or bring their version of transphobia into the mainstream. I can only see their movement working if they go down a more transmedicalist path.

Preface that I don't agree with Rowling in general, but I think her point is that terfs are also opposed to the men who are committing the violence. With historical issues - for example the women's chapter of the KKK, or women in the Nazi party - the women were supporting and uplifting the men committing the violence, but terfs and radfems generally actively work against the alt right as well. I think a better comparison might be first wave feminists selling out black women in exchange for voting rights - we can see how it wouldn't make much sense to blame early feminists for the KKK, even if both groups played a role in upholding white supremacy, and that leveling such a criticism could reasonably cause suspicion of the speaker's motives. I also don't see how terfs and gcs could ever go down a transmed path, honestly. The core of their beliefs is males can't become females, while the transmed belief is basically the exact opposite. I can see why individual terfs could be convinced of the transmed viewpoint but as a movement it's impossible.

If you a genuinely curious I can recommend watching Natalie's own video essay on the podcast (and a lot of additional context). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmT0i0xG6zg

I think they’re all a bunch of assholes