The Witch Trials of JK Rowling podcast

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As someone who was almost brainwashed into thinking I was "non-binary", I love Rowling for sticking up for truth. Women with hormonal issues, disabilities, neurodivergent minds and other afflictions that make them look less "feminine", despite being deeply feminine in their hearts, are targets of this bizarre "non-binary" rhetoric. It's offensive and misogynistic.

Frankly I think there's something pretty sinister, too, in how the medical industry is sooooo eager to perform dangerous experiments on these sensitive teens in the name of "social justice". Like puberty blockers.

Rowling is the only celebrity with the courage to call it out. Many others who are as rich as she is still refuse to say a word. That alone sets her apart in my eyes.

+1

[Anonymous]

^^^ raped

[Anonymous]

I love this podcast!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:JKR may be extremely wealthy but at the end of the day she is just one more woman who has received countless graphic rape threats for saying and doing something men didn’t like.

Yep.

https://terfisaslur.com/j-k-rowling/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This feels like the same person posting over and over, trying to convince us that it's ok to dislike trans people.

This is exactly how the public gaslit JKR, who actually doesn't hate trans people.

As long as they don't expect any rights, JKR will allow trans people to exist. What else could anyone want (besides rights)?

What rights is Rowling trying to take away from trans people?

She thinks there should be some parameters around accessing public bathrooms and being kept in prison with someone of the opposite biological gender. She is generally fine with trans women accessing bathrooms but would like some parameters to prevent men who aren't trans from entering.

So convicted rapists who self-ID as women now have inalienable rights to be housed in women’s prisons?

Yes, in Scotland. And she is concerned because in some cases, male rapists have identified as female after the arrest and demanded to be housed in a women's prison, where they raped female prisoners. She feels that this is not an acceptable approach.

It should be 100% obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that it’s unacceptable, yet here we are.

I thought so, but the podcast was illuminating about why the trans community is upset about this. They feel that their gender identities are often complicated and don't conform to expectations, and they don't want to leave it to other people to interpret which bathroom or prison is correct for them. They believe people can only reliably determine their sex for themselves, so observable traits like penises are not reliable determinants for things like bathrooms and prisons.

I don’t understand why any of that trumps women’s rights to safety and bodily autonomy.

I wasn't persuaded by it. I think that women are a vulnerable population and that they deserve some protection based on the weaknesses inherent to their biology. But, I previously didn't understand why trans people were upset about any of this, and now it makes sense to me. They think that the risk to women is acceptable when weighed against the risk of not having their gender identity validated by society.

Yes. Their rights to being validated are more important than actual women not being draped, especially now that large percentages of American women no longer have reproductive rights. /s

One might argue that being denied validation is actually an essential part of womanhood.

[Anonymous]

As someone who is very liberal and used to be a huge ally of trans people, I've seen them get increasingly weird and fringe as time has passed. This was especially something I witnessed in the Pagan community. There's a particular misogyny in their arguments, and I've increasingly come to think that a lot of transgender and nonbinary arguments are not based on truth but on trauma reactions to gender stereotypes.

It's like the entire trans movement, or a large part of it, is the consequence of years of toxic masculinity / femininity.

And the violent reaction to J K Rowling seems to be a part of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This feels like the same person posting over and over, trying to convince us that it's ok to dislike trans people.

This is exactly how the public gaslit JKR, who actually doesn't hate trans people.

As long as they don't expect any rights, JKR will allow trans people to exist. What else could anyone want (besides rights)?

What rights is Rowling trying to take away from trans people?

She thinks there should be some parameters around accessing public bathrooms and being kept in prison with someone of the opposite biological gender. She is generally fine with trans women accessing bathrooms but would like some parameters to prevent men who aren't trans from entering.

So convicted rapists who self-ID as women now have inalienable rights to be housed in women’s prisons?

Yes, in Scotland. And she is concerned because in some cases, male rapists have identified as female after the arrest and demanded to be housed in a women's prison, where they raped female prisoners. She feels that this is not an acceptable approach.

It should be 100% obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that it’s unacceptable, yet here we are.

I thought so, but the podcast was illuminating about why the trans community is upset about this. They feel that their gender identities are often complicated and don't conform to expectations, and they don't want to leave it to other people to interpret which bathroom or prison is correct for them. They believe people can only reliably determine their sex for themselves, so observable traits like penises are not reliable determinants for things like bathrooms and prisons.

I don’t understand why any of that trumps women’s rights to safety and bodily autonomy.

I wasn't persuaded by it. I think that women are a vulnerable population and that they deserve some protection based on the weaknesses inherent to their biology. But, I previously didn't understand why trans people were upset about any of this, and now it makes sense to me. They think that the risk to women is acceptable when weighed against the risk of not having their gender identity validated by society.

What is interesting is that is such a privileged, historically male position to take. Women don’t typically get the luxury of choosing societal validation over safety in their hierarchy of needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This feels like the same person posting over and over, trying to convince us that it's ok to dislike trans people.

This is exactly how the public gaslit JKR, who actually doesn't hate trans people.

As long as they don't expect any rights, JKR will allow trans people to exist. What else could anyone want (besides rights)?

What rights is Rowling trying to take away from trans people?

She thinks there should be some parameters around accessing public bathrooms and being kept in prison with someone of the opposite biological gender. She is generally fine with trans women accessing bathrooms but would like some parameters to prevent men who aren't trans from entering.

So convicted rapists who self-ID as women now have inalienable rights to be housed in women’s prisons?

Yes, in Scotland. And she is concerned because in some cases, male rapists have identified as female after the arrest and demanded to be housed in a women's prison, where they raped female prisoners. She feels that this is not an acceptable approach.

It should be 100% obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that it’s unacceptable, yet here we are.

I thought so, but the podcast was illuminating about why the trans community is upset about this. They feel that their gender identities are often complicated and don't conform to expectations, and they don't want to leave it to other people to interpret which bathroom or prison is correct for them. They believe people can only reliably determine their sex for themselves, so observable traits like penises are not reliable determinants for things like bathrooms and prisons.

I don’t understand why any of that trumps women’s rights to safety and bodily autonomy.

I wasn't persuaded by it. I think that women are a vulnerable population and that they deserve some protection based on the weaknesses inherent to their biology. But, I previously didn't understand why trans people were upset about any of this, and now it makes sense to me. They think that the risk to women is acceptable when weighed against the risk of not having their gender identity validated by society.

If transwomen want their gender identity validated by society, doesn’t that mean somehow winning the approval of half of society, which is … biological women? How is alienating and turning against half of society a winning strategy to gain general acceptance? Or do transwomen only want to be validated by biological men?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This feels like the same person posting over and over, trying to convince us that it's ok to dislike trans people.

This is exactly how the public gaslit JKR, who actually doesn't hate trans people.

As long as they don't expect any rights, JKR will allow trans people to exist. What else could anyone want (besides rights)?

What rights is Rowling trying to take away from trans people?

She thinks there should be some parameters around accessing public bathrooms and being kept in prison with someone of the opposite biological gender. She is generally fine with trans women accessing bathrooms but would like some parameters to prevent men who aren't trans from entering.

So convicted rapists who self-ID as women now have inalienable rights to be housed in women’s prisons?

Yes, in Scotland. And she is concerned because in some cases, male rapists have identified as female after the arrest and demanded to be housed in a women's prison, where they raped female prisoners. She feels that this is not an acceptable approach.

It should be 100% obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that it’s unacceptable, yet here we are.

I thought so, but the podcast was illuminating about why the trans community is upset about this. They feel that their gender identities are often complicated and don't conform to expectations, and they don't want to leave it to other people to interpret which bathroom or prison is correct for them. They believe people can only reliably determine their sex for themselves, so observable traits like penises are not reliable determinants for things like bathrooms and prisons.

I don’t understand why any of that trumps women’s rights to safety and bodily autonomy.

I wasn't persuaded by it. I think that women are a vulnerable population and that they deserve some protection based on the weaknesses inherent to their biology. But, I previously didn't understand why trans people were upset about any of this, and now it makes sense to me. They think that the risk to women is acceptable when weighed against the risk of not having their gender identity validated by society.

What is interesting is that is such a privileged, historically male position to take. Women don’t typically get the luxury of choosing societal validation over safety in their hierarchy of needs.

NP. No surprise that the privileged male mindset carries over even after transitioning. Hence the threats of sexual violence when someone speaks up for those AFAB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This feels like the same person posting over and over, trying to convince us that it's ok to dislike trans people.

+1

"delusional"
"something men didn’t like"
women's prison!
and other faux hysterics

Standard RWNJ/TURF talking points.

If the trans “debate” isn’t misogynistic, why do people use TERF but without any equivalent term for men? Why do we say “trans women are women” 10x more frequently than we say trans men are men? Why do non-medically transitioned trans women demand to be in women only spaces (ie women’s prisons) while the trans men don’t? Why do trans women threaten to rape women but trans men don’t?

How many men are on DCUM and trashing transgender people 24x7? I mostly see hostile women - many older and/or lesbians.

If men were relentlessly attacking transgender people we could come up with a name for them. TERM?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This feels like the same person posting over and over, trying to convince us that it's ok to dislike trans people.

This is exactly how the public gaslit JKR, who actually doesn't hate trans people.

As long as they don't expect any rights, JKR will allow trans people to exist. What else could anyone want (besides rights)?

What rights is Rowling trying to take away from trans people?

She thinks there should be some parameters around accessing public bathrooms and being kept in prison with someone of the opposite biological gender. She is generally fine with trans women accessing bathrooms but would like some parameters to prevent men who aren't trans from entering.

So convicted rapists who self-ID as women now have inalienable rights to be housed in women’s prisons?

Yes, in Scotland. And she is concerned because in some cases, male rapists have identified as female after the arrest and demanded to be housed in a women's prison, where they raped female prisoners. She feels that this is not an acceptable approach.

It should be 100% obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that it’s unacceptable, yet here we are.

I thought so, but the podcast was illuminating about why the trans community is upset about this. They feel that their gender identities are often complicated and don't conform to expectations, and they don't want to leave it to other people to interpret which bathroom or prison is correct for them. They believe people can only reliably determine their sex for themselves, so observable traits like penises are not reliable determinants for things like bathrooms and prisons.

I don’t understand why any of that trumps women’s rights to safety and bodily autonomy.

I wasn't persuaded by it. I think that women are a vulnerable population and that they deserve some protection based on the weaknesses inherent to their biology. But, I previously didn't understand why trans people were upset about any of this, and now it makes sense to me. They think that the risk to women is acceptable when weighed against the risk of not having their gender identity validated by society.

What is interesting is that is such a privileged, historically male position to take. Women don’t typically get the luxury of choosing societal validation over safety in their hierarchy of needs.

I hadn’t considered this but you are absolutely correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This feels like the same person posting over and over, trying to convince us that it's ok to dislike trans people.

This is exactly how the public gaslit JKR, who actually doesn't hate trans people.

As long as they don't expect any rights, JKR will allow trans people to exist. What else could anyone want (besides rights)?

What rights is Rowling trying to take away from trans people?

She thinks there should be some parameters around accessing public bathrooms and being kept in prison with someone of the opposite biological gender. She is generally fine with trans women accessing bathrooms but would like some parameters to prevent men who aren't trans from entering.

So convicted rapists who self-ID as women now have inalienable rights to be housed in women’s prisons?

Yes, in Scotland. And she is concerned because in some cases, male rapists have identified as female after the arrest and demanded to be housed in a women's prison, where they raped female prisoners. She feels that this is not an acceptable approach.

It should be 100% obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that it’s unacceptable, yet here we are.

I thought so, but the podcast was illuminating about why the trans community is upset about this. They feel that their gender identities are often complicated and don't conform to expectations, and they don't want to leave it to other people to interpret which bathroom or prison is correct for them. They believe people can only reliably determine their sex for themselves, so observable traits like penises are not reliable determinants for things like bathrooms and prisons.

I don’t understand why any of that trumps women’s rights to safety and bodily autonomy.

I wasn't persuaded by it. I think that women are a vulnerable population and that they deserve some protection based on the weaknesses inherent to their biology. But, I previously didn't understand why trans people were upset about any of this, and now it makes sense to me. They think that the risk to women is acceptable when weighed against the risk of not having their gender identity validated by society.

If transwomen want their gender identity validated by society, doesn’t that mean somehow winning the approval of half of society, which is … biological women? How is alienating and turning against half of society a winning strategy to gain general acceptance? Or do transwomen only want to be validated by biological men?

Transgender women are only "alienating" anti-trans women. The rest of us are fine and support all women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This feels like the same person posting over and over, trying to convince us that it's ok to dislike trans people.

+1

"delusional"
"something men didn’t like"
women's prison!
and other faux hysterics

Standard RWNJ/TURF talking points.

If the trans “debate” isn’t misogynistic, why do people use TERF but without any equivalent term for men? Why do we say “trans women are women” 10x more frequently than we say trans men are men? Why do non-medically transitioned trans women demand to be in women only spaces (ie women’s prisons) while the trans men don’t? Why do trans women threaten to rape women but trans men don’t?

How many men are on DCUM and trashing transgender people 24x7? I mostly see hostile women - many older and/or lesbians.

If men were relentlessly attacking transgender people we could come up with a name for them. TERM?

Feminists aren’t relentlessly attacking transgender people. They are advocating for biological women and being attacked and threatened for it. By transwomen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This feels like the same person posting over and over, trying to convince us that it's ok to dislike trans people.

+1

"delusional"
"something men didn’t like"
women's prison!
and other faux hysterics

Standard RWNJ/TURF talking points.

I'm one of the PPs who used the term "delusion". I wasn't surprised that different people in this thread also used the word "delusion". You actually are delusional, and apparently losing your minds now that your personal hatred of JK Rowling isn't getting support. Like the extremely threatened PP who resorts to saying "buzzy words" every time someone pokes holes in her arguments.

Perhaps add "paranoia" to that list.

How am I delusional? Why do you think I'm losing my mind or hate JKR?

Using the term "delusional" just shows you're an anti-trans POS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This feels like the same person posting over and over, trying to convince us that it's ok to dislike trans people.

This is exactly how the public gaslit JKR, who actually doesn't hate trans people.

As long as they don't expect any rights, JKR will allow trans people to exist. What else could anyone want (besides rights)?

What rights is Rowling trying to take away from trans people?

She thinks there should be some parameters around accessing public bathrooms and being kept in prison with someone of the opposite biological gender. She is generally fine with trans women accessing bathrooms but would like some parameters to prevent men who aren't trans from entering.

So convicted rapists who self-ID as women now have inalienable rights to be housed in women’s prisons?

Yes, in Scotland. And she is concerned because in some cases, male rapists have identified as female after the arrest and demanded to be housed in a women's prison, where they raped female prisoners. She feels that this is not an acceptable approach.

It should be 100% obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that it’s unacceptable, yet here we are.

I thought so, but the podcast was illuminating about why the trans community is upset about this. They feel that their gender identities are often complicated and don't conform to expectations, and they don't want to leave it to other people to interpret which bathroom or prison is correct for them. They believe people can only reliably determine their sex for themselves, so observable traits like penises are not reliable determinants for things like bathrooms and prisons.

I don’t understand why any of that trumps women’s rights to safety and bodily autonomy.

I wasn't persuaded by it. I think that women are a vulnerable population and that they deserve some protection based on the weaknesses inherent to their biology. But, I previously didn't understand why trans people were upset about any of this, and now it makes sense to me. They think that the risk to women is acceptable when weighed against the risk of not having their gender identity validated by society.

If transwomen want their gender identity validated by society, doesn’t that mean somehow winning the approval of half of society, which is … biological women? How is alienating and turning against half of society a winning strategy to gain general acceptance? Or do transwomen only want to be validated by biological men?

Transgender women are only "alienating" anti-trans women. The rest of us are fine and support all women.

NP. Keep telling yourself that. I guess you’re pro-rape-threats?