JK Rowling opens by mentioning two opponents of GRA reform, Maya Forstater and Helen Joyce.
Forstater has recently been throwing a fit about a non-binary alien children's character.
Joyce was recently photographed smiling over a desecrated pride flag.
JK Rowling also helpfully assures readers that supporting her personal version of women's rights is not, in fact, as brave as Iranian women risking assault, imprisonment and death to stand up against gender inequality.
"Remarkably, nobody seems able to explain what living in an acquired gender actually means."
• Firstly, the requirement for a trans person to live as their gender is *already part of the current law* that Rowling presumably wants to keep. It just takes two years.
• Rowling gives no argument why forcing a trans person to spend two whole years getting their documents updated is somehow better for anyone but bureaucrats and sadists.
• And finally, yes, it can be explained what living in acquired gender actually means:
• The GRA has absolutely *nothing* to do with access to spaces, Jo.
• Trans people who have not undergone surgery have *already* have a legal right to use those spaces since the passing of the Equality Act in 2010 and in many cases before that as well.
• Not only that, but as previously mentioned the currently law requires a trans person to live as their authentic gender for a period of 2 years as part of getting a gender recognition certificate. For trans women, *that includes using the spaces JK Rowling lists*.
• The original FOI requests were about incidents across the entire premises, not just the changing rooms.
• That includes facilities with both unisex and separate changing rooms.
• The Times did not give serious investigation to other possible factors.
It feels unprofessional to describe JK Rowling as having plucked this claim from the depths of her own anus, but I mean... what else can you say to this absolute manure?
Supposedly, this an argument "beloved of trans activists."
Look, if Rowling can find a single, real, genuine trans person or "trans activist" who will earnestly argue that no trans individual on the face of the earth could ever conceivably harm a woman in any way whatsoever, we will delete our account.
What on earth does any of this have to do with trans people?
Why is anyone suppose to take examples of abuses not committed by trans people as any kind of argument that trans people shouldn't be able to update their ID more easily?
JK Rowling, who a few paragraphs ago implied that there were "trans activists" that believed trans people were fundamentally incapable of hurting women, would like to reassure us that "feminists" don't think that all trans people are predators.
"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. […] They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.
WHEN YOU ARE "DEBATING" THE BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS AND SAFETY OF AN ENTIRE CATEGORY OF MARGINALISED PEOPLE THAT SUFFER FROM INCREASED RISKS OF VIOLENCE AND SUICIDE, THE FACT THAT MANY ARE EXTREMELY VULNERABLE **IS** IN FACT THE POINT, ACTUALY!
... I'm sorry, so the very worst thing JK Rowling was able to find out about the GRA reform consultation was that they preferred to receive written rather than spoken evidence from people who, by the sounds of it, did not actually have much evidence on GRA reform?
Some fun facts about Andrea Dworkin:
• Andrea Dworkin was a famously trans-supporting radical feminist.
• She did not believe that sex was binary and opposed biological essentialism.
• She would probably have thought that JK Rowling was a complete and utter prat.
We would like to take a moment to thank JK Rowling, the multi-multi-millionaire who tweets things from her castle, for very generously sharing this opinion regarding people in situations they will never have to face.
The attempt to reform the GRA in Scotland is not new; it's been in the works for years. JK Rowling even referenced it in her 2020 "TERF Wars" manifesto.
And do you want to know the sum total of concrete evidence anti-trans campaigners have amassed in all that time?
Anti-trans campaigners had years to do their research and test their beliefs. They had data from 20 countries that already have so-called "Self-ID" laws for trans people.
And they found nothing that could seriously support their claims.
The absurd claims that Rowling made in her Times article could not have survived journalistic fact checking.
But she is a rich, powerful celebrity, and so her opinions, however unevidenced, however asinine, can be published unchallenged under the guise of "news".
And while JK Rowling is given an endless, unchecked media platform to suggest that GRA reform will lead to rape and violence, the mainstream British media turns a careful blind eye to the real-life heinous actions of the anti-trans movement.
JK Rowling flies into a libellous rage against musician Billy Bragg after Bragg agrees that media should talk to trans people about trans issues rather than JK Rowling.
In response, Rowling implies that Bragg has thrown his "support behind rape and death threats".
A furious JK Rowling has responded to Billy Bragg by smearing him as a misogynist and - bloody hell - seemingly describing his refutation of her libellous claim that he supports rape and death threats as "complaining that a woman has a view on woman’s rights."
Helen Joyce, the anti-trans campaigner, has suggested that the fatwa declared against Salman Rushdie - who was literally stabbed yesterday - is the same as JK Rowling receiving criticism and mockery for her transphobia and bigotry.
Update from Leo Kearse:
Actually JK Rowling is *more* victimised than Salman Rushdie - who, once again, has just been stabbed - because publishers are "too scared to even acknowledge [her] existence."
JK Rowling has a new book coming out this month.
Excusers of JK Rowling's bigotry are currently spreading images of the first of these screenshots, trying to demonise her critics and trans people.
They are - accidentally or deliberately - ignoring that the person in question is a Rowling defender attempting to be sarcastic.
Imagine how incompetent a literary agent you would have to be in order to fail at selling books by white guys.
The comment section, as ever, is a delight
When confronted with evidence from about half the internet that - statistically speaking - being white is quite a benefit in the publishing world, Joyce Carol Oates graciously accepted that "there are [exceptions]" to her claim while also doubling down.
The day before JK Rowling tried to link trans people and their rights with "Predators", she publicly endorsed the work of Matt Walsh, a man who has downplayed the rape of children and believes that they should be forced give birth to their rapist's child.
We're trying to make sure this account doesn't just become "Bad JK Rowling Takes"…
And today we are failing again. Because while LGBTQ+ people were protesting the Government's support for trans conversion therapy, JKR had a cosy meal with transphobic extremists.
We regret to inform you that JK Rowling is at it again.
Days after the UK government's decision that they would allow trans conversion therapy to remain legal, Rowling has endorsed David Bell, a man who has done panels for Genspect, the conversion therapy group.
Rowling then followed up by doubling down on her support of Bell and highlighting a commenter expressing anger at her bigotry - completely ignoring the many replies with detailed criticisms of her position.
This tweet is going to take some dissection, so buckle up…