Cass has said "every young person who walks through the door should be included in some kind of proper research protocol" and for those "where there is a clear, clinical view" that the medical pathway is best will still receive that. So she's far from saying that the use of puberty blockers and hormone treatments are harmful or have no place.
I think what she said is that their efficacy is unclear and needs to be properly studied and/but there have been a lot of unsupported and unscientific claims about them. It's been a while since I read the report, but I believe she may have also addressed the possibility of undesireable irreversible effects that have been downplayed by advocates of such treatment.
But, and it's a big one, there are a lot of medical professionals and organizations who say that it HAS been properly studied. And yes, there are side effects. But I haven't read anything about irreversible side effects (and I've had reason to look for them). I agree that more research is needed. But this gave fuel to conservatives to deny medical treatment to people in many cases. And I don't think that's right. Are cisgendered kids also being denied puberty blockers?
There's tons of evidence that the studies have been problematic. And there is evidence that there are irreversible side effects, including putting kids on a 90 per cent track to "gender change" when watching and waiting has a 90 per cent chance of the opposite (I'm not being precise here). There's no such thing as a drug with no side effects, BTW. At best, there is no clear evidence because the issue has been so politicized, and so caution is warranted, which is why so many countries far more liberal than the US have limited the use of puberty blockers.
I actually said "yes, there are side effects". "Putting kids on a 90% track" isn't a side effects. "At best there is no clear evidence" says one study.
Here's something from an article that is generally in favor of the treatments from endocrine news, which interestingly downplays the significance of likely infertility:
Although the treatments are considered safe, they are not risk-free. Most transgenders become infertile as a result of the hormonal switching medications. Estrogens diminish sperm production in males, and testosterone’s cessation of menses can cause polycystic ovaries in women; these changes usually lead to infertility. Some late-pubertal male patients have opted for sperm banking, but equivalent options for women are limited. Egg freezing is an arduous and expensive procedure requiring ovarian hyperstimulation with HCG, akin to women undergoing in vitro fertilization, and not as likely to be successful, especially if the ovaries are immature when GnRH-suppressed.
“It’s hard to have a conversation about fertility when the patient is 12 or 14 years old,” said Spack. “It’s important for patients to continue to be in psychotherapy during this long diagnostic phase so they can fully understand the implication of taking cross-steroids, even though they are waiting anxiously to get them.”
Another risk is cancer. Girls who have breasts and undergo testosterone treatment need regular mammogram screening as adult men; those who have their uteruses while on testosterone may develop endometrial cancer. Both risks can be mitigated by surgical removal of the organs.
Thank you for writing this, Thomas. Really. Unlike you, I am one of those kids who grew up reading JK Rowling’s books. I was 10 when Harry was. It shaped my childhood and not a little of my adulthood, and for years I’ve considered JK Rowling a personal hero.
And then, because I’m generally left-leaning and spend time in those online spaces, suddenly I found myself inundated with claims that JK was an awful bigot, and because I personally don’t have a dog in the trans fight or much knowledge or really interest in the issue, but of course I’m against bigotry, I didn’t know how to feel. On the one hand I was angry, because I couldn’t see how the person who wrote Harry Potter could be some oppressor, and on the other hand I wished she’d just stayed out of it because I wanted to hold onto this one untarnished, unpoliticized thing from my childhood in a world where every damned thing has become political.
I loved Bill Cosby as a kid. And look what he turned out to be. I’ve long claimed Neil Gaiman as one of my favorite writers, and look at him. It genuinely hurt seeing everyone call Rowing a monster and not seeing one dissenting voice.
I didn’t know that the tides had turned for her because I’ve started reflexively blocking posts that mention her. A defensive wall. So when I saw the title of your post, I was compelled to read it. I don’t hate trans people or the trans movement —except for people taking advantage of children, if you’re right about that— I’m generally pretty socially libertarian. But seeing this framing of JK as someone standing up for good in the face of mob justice and runaway ideology is a framing that I would really like to believe. I’ll think on it. But for now, thank you.
The HP series bored me until book 5, which had such echoes of 1930s England when the elite were bent on ignoring the warnings of Churchill about the Nazi threat.
"Here’s a simple definition of “man” and “woman” for those who are struggling—or pretending to do so. Call it a definition on one foot. If you ever could, ever will be able to, or ever did father a child, you’re a man. If you ever could, ever will be able to, or ever did conceive a child, you’re a woman. All the rest is commentary."
This doesn't work. You'd get nonsensical arguments like what about women/men with infertility problems or what about intersex people (as if people with intersex condition are a whole bunch of new sexes).
Nothing on this earth works perfectly 100% of the time, so that opposition lacks merit.
And fertility problems don't change that. A woman with fertility problems has all the necessary equipment, but she's either not getting pregnant or she keeps losing the pregnancies. Either way, she "could" have a child - she just hasn't yet. A man with fertility problems also has all the necessary equipment; it's just a bit wonky - for instance perhaps he makes too few sperm to impregnate a woman the natural way, without medical help.
What's your point? You're correct that "what about women/men with fertility problems" is a nonsensical argument. I was explaining some of the reasons that it's nonsensical.
"Could have a child" doesn't mean "if you try to have a baby, you definitely will." It means you have all the necessary anatomy to either (a) impregnate someone or (b) get pregnant. You may also have fertility problems, but your fertility problems don't change your sex.
My definition solves 98 % of gen population issues and 99% of people “identifying as the opposite sex.” If you’re trying to get pregnant, you’re a woman. If you’re trying to fertilize a woman you’re a man. Succes is not the measure.
You're preaching to the choir telling me that. I'm saying all the common sense definitions get distorted by the kind of "counter-arguments" in my reply. It is unbelievable how many normal people have been brainwashed so easily by those distortions. The solution is not to offer more common sense definitions. It is to offer counter-courter-arguments to interrupt the brainwashing, deprogram, and put senses back into people. So far, the side of common sense have not been able to come up with clear and straight-forward responses to those nonsensical distortions. The responses, no matter how sane, end up getting you down a ridiculous rabbit hole of back-and-forth that becomes too confusing and too tied up with minutiae that is impossible most people to follow. Much like Maya Forstater going into the weeds about gametes during her trial proceeding. Too many liberals now literally believe TWAW, and women can have penises. I've seen people I know IRL who have been normal and logical all their lives who now suddenly say things like this without a blink of an eye. During the Olympics I've had to argue with friends about "XY women". They adamantly believe now "XW women" is a real thing. All of them are brainwashed because of the kind of "counter-arguments" I mentioned. The kind of definitions like the one you offered don't work because they're all emotionally and more passionately concerned about the "marginalized" over the majority and the norms. Until these distortions based on exceptions can be debunked, we're still screwed.
A male human being is a human who was born with testes.
A female human being is a human who was born with ovaries.
I didn't say "testicles" because some boys are born with their testes in the wrong place -- they're only called "testicles" if they're external.
As for ovaries, technically some female DSDs result in the baby being born with "ovarian streaks" -- same organ, different shape. If you want to be hyper-correct you could say "ovaries or ovarian streaks" for the female definition.
There’s a certain percentage that won’t be converted , no matter what, but I’ve actually seen some people turn around on this issue. Ultimately, it’s an argument about who owns the terminology, and at some point, I will make a language based argument, as opposed to the common sense one. But I guess what I’m saying is it’s an ideological marker. Anyone who believes that someone who has fathered a child is a woman or who has birthed a baby is a man cannot be reasoned with scientifically on this matter. But the rest of us should feel comfortable that our position is rock solid on the overwhelming number of cases before us including the most visible who are absolutely not exceptions biologically, ie Caitlyn Jenner, etc
From what I'm seeing, that percentage is not a small minority. It's actually a large segment of the population on the left. And I'm not talking about those who are political activists. The woke mind virus has infected a lot of people who otherwise are considered normal. Certainly we already are comfortable that our position is sound and rock solid. But our confidence is framed as bigotry until we can formulate a respond that can dispel the distortions that are used to justify nonsense as "truths" and "facts". Until then, institutions including scientific institutions are changing all languages and policies to turn the distortions into the norm.
The problem with the common sense definitions is that they're not saying such definitions is untrue. They're saying it's not the "only" truth, and that there are more truths out there. That's how people's minds begin to get confused, and how they fall for the ridiculous nonsense. Their make their additional truths sound like something that make sense.
Agreed. Ultimately, it’s a question about language. And I think we have to fight a multi frontal war. Part of the front is reassuring people who think that they’re going crazy that they’re not going crazy. And that’s kind of what I was aiming for. How to deprogram the lunacy is I agree much more difficult problem.
You are very honorable to write this article. I am impressed with your ability to be authentic with yourself to write truthfully and, in my opinion courageously.
I can look at myself in private and engage in authentic observations of my own weakness but I cannot recall ever having done so in public. I admire your genuineness.
I have opposed these gender illusions and outright lies from the moment I first saw them. I had no issue with anyone being allowed to embrace an illusion if they made the conscious choice as adults to live that way. Freedom for myself requires allowing freedom for others.
Yet when they reached beyond seeking tolerance toward demanding acceptance and coercing my use of the English language by demanding that I address them with their “preferred pronouns” or risk losing my job or my reputation and insisted that I dare not say a word against their forcing this foolishness onto impressionable children in the third grade, that was a “bridge too far”!
So now I am unwilling to even grant tolerance toward them ever again. In fact, if I had the wit, I would give their foolishness nothing more than a creative and well crafted insult!
Well stated, and don't beat yourself up too much because you feared the Wokenazis. They're a vicious, hateful, vengeful bunch, like their compatriots on the far right. Trump is a cult of personality; wokeness is a leaderless cult, perhaps more akin to Al Qaeda's separate cells; it doesn't matter that no one else knows what you're doing as long as you're working to destroy whoever it is you all agree you can't stand, who are better off dead.
Continue to speak out, Perplexed Jew...maybe one day we can all speak freely again.
I have to admit, I imagined this day, when I was 21, coming from a result of a Republican takeover. But here we are, in the left's version of an already-implemented version of Project 2025. Woke-style.
What an interesting discussion. As a member of the LGBTQ community, I agree with Ms. Rowling and Martina Navratilova that yes, transgender women often have unfair advantages. However, you know what folks?…I support all the transgender athletes who can compete. Why??? Because the international sports organizations are bigoted and mostly run by males who don’t even respect those who were BORN women. Even those who are BORN women don’t receive respect when it comes to the international organizations who run these sports. Maybe when those organizations fully recognize that ALL humans have the right to compete as athletes with full rights, privileges, and equal financial recompense, then maybe this debate might have meaning to someone like me. It is not my intention to be offensive, but as someone who has been marginalized for over 60 years (despite the fact that I am white and highly educated), I will continue to support any trans athlete who is allowed to compete.
You do realize that trans athletes can compete against athletes of their own sex, right?
It cannot be a human right for trans people to compete against members of the opposite sex, because A HUMAN RIGHT IS A RIGHT THAT *ALL* HUMANS HAVE. Unless you think that ALL adult male athletes have the right to compete against female athletes, it can't be a "human right" for ANY adult male athletes to compete against female athletes.
I thought Dumbledore as gay was consistent with the text and the description of his friendship/unrequited love for Grindelwald. More obviously commercial and retconned is the entire US angle to the Fantastic Beasts films.
When Dumbledore became gay, I lost all respect for Rowling. When she started to say that trans women are really men, I thought she was stating the obvious. Then I taught a transgender history class, I anticipated discussing a spectrum of ideas—some controversial. I did not expect my students to come to the class to be affirmed as trans or allies. Until the political climate changes, I will not teach that class again. Rowling has stood strong against the winds of misogyny. I have a 30 year old trans daughter, who is not a politicized trans person. Radical trans activists make it more difficult for people like her to live their lives.
This gender confusion as to how we can 100% say whether someone is male or female has given me an obvious job opportunity. I have….ahem….a SUPERPOWER. Yes I really do. I can tell within at most 4 seconds whether someone is male or female. Usually it doesn’t take even the four seconds. The IOC should hire me. I know Superheroes don’t normally make money off their superpower but in this case I would charge as it would necessitate me having to be around IOC types. I gotta be paid to do that.
I get not “getting” Harry Potter as an adult. JKR has this far written seven wonderful detective novels (as Robert Galbraith) about Cormoran Strike and his partner Robin Ellacott. Check them out if you haven’t already! You would never know it’s the same writer, save for the deep understanding of friendship also found in the Potter novels.
The Witch Trials of JK Rowling introduced me to Bari Weiss’ The Free Press, and Honestly podcast - with its riveting story telling that wasn’t afraid to tackle a highly charged topic. It’s only because of JK’s unpopularity amongst the most online audiences that it’s not regarded in a higher manner IMO. While I don’t agree with everything Rowling has posted, she fights for things she believes in and doesn’t back down from the online mob.
You hit it here: you have to be brave in order to express yourself online these days, that’s not the sort of world we should aspire to. Bill
Maher calls this, “the one true opinion” and if you dare offer a counter to that, you can expect backlash; if your influence is great enough you risk employment, maybe even personal safety.
Today’s progressives are flirting with the type of censorship that is antithetical to actual liberalism. They are becoming just as fearful of free thinking as the radical right.
Cass has said "every young person who walks through the door should be included in some kind of proper research protocol" and for those "where there is a clear, clinical view" that the medical pathway is best will still receive that. So she's far from saying that the use of puberty blockers and hormone treatments are harmful or have no place.
I think what she said is that their efficacy is unclear and needs to be properly studied and/but there have been a lot of unsupported and unscientific claims about them. It's been a while since I read the report, but I believe she may have also addressed the possibility of undesireable irreversible effects that have been downplayed by advocates of such treatment.
And there efficacy is 100% clear. They stop puberty while you're taking them.
But, and it's a big one, there are a lot of medical professionals and organizations who say that it HAS been properly studied. And yes, there are side effects. But I haven't read anything about irreversible side effects (and I've had reason to look for them). I agree that more research is needed. But this gave fuel to conservatives to deny medical treatment to people in many cases. And I don't think that's right. Are cisgendered kids also being denied puberty blockers?
There's tons of evidence that the studies have been problematic. And there is evidence that there are irreversible side effects, including putting kids on a 90 per cent track to "gender change" when watching and waiting has a 90 per cent chance of the opposite (I'm not being precise here). There's no such thing as a drug with no side effects, BTW. At best, there is no clear evidence because the issue has been so politicized, and so caution is warranted, which is why so many countries far more liberal than the US have limited the use of puberty blockers.
I actually said "yes, there are side effects". "Putting kids on a 90% track" isn't a side effects. "At best there is no clear evidence" says one study.
Here's something from an article that is generally in favor of the treatments from endocrine news, which interestingly downplays the significance of likely infertility:
Although the treatments are considered safe, they are not risk-free. Most transgenders become infertile as a result of the hormonal switching medications. Estrogens diminish sperm production in males, and testosterone’s cessation of menses can cause polycystic ovaries in women; these changes usually lead to infertility. Some late-pubertal male patients have opted for sperm banking, but equivalent options for women are limited. Egg freezing is an arduous and expensive procedure requiring ovarian hyperstimulation with HCG, akin to women undergoing in vitro fertilization, and not as likely to be successful, especially if the ovaries are immature when GnRH-suppressed.
“It’s hard to have a conversation about fertility when the patient is 12 or 14 years old,” said Spack. “It’s important for patients to continue to be in psychotherapy during this long diagnostic phase so they can fully understand the implication of taking cross-steroids, even though they are waiting anxiously to get them.”
Another risk is cancer. Girls who have breasts and undergo testosterone treatment need regular mammogram screening as adult men; those who have their uteruses while on testosterone may develop endometrial cancer. Both risks can be mitigated by surgical removal of the organs.
That article doesn't appear to be talking about puberty blockers.
Thank you for writing this, Thomas. Really. Unlike you, I am one of those kids who grew up reading JK Rowling’s books. I was 10 when Harry was. It shaped my childhood and not a little of my adulthood, and for years I’ve considered JK Rowling a personal hero.
And then, because I’m generally left-leaning and spend time in those online spaces, suddenly I found myself inundated with claims that JK was an awful bigot, and because I personally don’t have a dog in the trans fight or much knowledge or really interest in the issue, but of course I’m against bigotry, I didn’t know how to feel. On the one hand I was angry, because I couldn’t see how the person who wrote Harry Potter could be some oppressor, and on the other hand I wished she’d just stayed out of it because I wanted to hold onto this one untarnished, unpoliticized thing from my childhood in a world where every damned thing has become political.
I loved Bill Cosby as a kid. And look what he turned out to be. I’ve long claimed Neil Gaiman as one of my favorite writers, and look at him. It genuinely hurt seeing everyone call Rowing a monster and not seeing one dissenting voice.
I didn’t know that the tides had turned for her because I’ve started reflexively blocking posts that mention her. A defensive wall. So when I saw the title of your post, I was compelled to read it. I don’t hate trans people or the trans movement —except for people taking advantage of children, if you’re right about that— I’m generally pretty socially libertarian. But seeing this framing of JK as someone standing up for good in the face of mob justice and runaway ideology is a framing that I would really like to believe. I’ll think on it. But for now, thank you.
The latest on the whole boxing thing adds some clarity to the debate?
https://reduxx.info/algerian-boxer-imane-khelif-has-xy-chromosomes-and-testicles-french-algerian-medical-report-admits/
The HP series bored me until book 5, which had such echoes of 1930s England when the elite were bent on ignoring the warnings of Churchill about the Nazi threat.
But see footnotes for more insight
"Here’s a simple definition of “man” and “woman” for those who are struggling—or pretending to do so. Call it a definition on one foot. If you ever could, ever will be able to, or ever did father a child, you’re a man. If you ever could, ever will be able to, or ever did conceive a child, you’re a woman. All the rest is commentary."
This doesn't work. You'd get nonsensical arguments like what about women/men with infertility problems or what about intersex people (as if people with intersex condition are a whole bunch of new sexes).
Nothing on this earth works perfectly 100% of the time, so that opposition lacks merit.
And fertility problems don't change that. A woman with fertility problems has all the necessary equipment, but she's either not getting pregnant or she keeps losing the pregnancies. Either way, she "could" have a child - she just hasn't yet. A man with fertility problems also has all the necessary equipment; it's just a bit wonky - for instance perhaps he makes too few sperm to impregnate a woman the natural way, without medical help.
Your reply perfectly describes "keeping your mind so open your brain spilled out".
What's your point? You're correct that "what about women/men with fertility problems" is a nonsensical argument. I was explaining some of the reasons that it's nonsensical.
"Could have a child" doesn't mean "if you try to have a baby, you definitely will." It means you have all the necessary anatomy to either (a) impregnate someone or (b) get pregnant. You may also have fertility problems, but your fertility problems don't change your sex.
My definition solves 98 % of gen population issues and 99% of people “identifying as the opposite sex.” If you’re trying to get pregnant, you’re a woman. If you’re trying to fertilize a woman you’re a man. Succes is not the measure.
You're preaching to the choir telling me that. I'm saying all the common sense definitions get distorted by the kind of "counter-arguments" in my reply. It is unbelievable how many normal people have been brainwashed so easily by those distortions. The solution is not to offer more common sense definitions. It is to offer counter-courter-arguments to interrupt the brainwashing, deprogram, and put senses back into people. So far, the side of common sense have not been able to come up with clear and straight-forward responses to those nonsensical distortions. The responses, no matter how sane, end up getting you down a ridiculous rabbit hole of back-and-forth that becomes too confusing and too tied up with minutiae that is impossible most people to follow. Much like Maya Forstater going into the weeds about gametes during her trial proceeding. Too many liberals now literally believe TWAW, and women can have penises. I've seen people I know IRL who have been normal and logical all their lives who now suddenly say things like this without a blink of an eye. During the Olympics I've had to argue with friends about "XY women". They adamantly believe now "XW women" is a real thing. All of them are brainwashed because of the kind of "counter-arguments" I mentioned. The kind of definitions like the one you offered don't work because they're all emotionally and more passionately concerned about the "marginalized" over the majority and the norms. Until these distortions based on exceptions can be debunked, we're still screwed.
Simplest definitions:
A male human being is a human who was born with testes.
A female human being is a human who was born with ovaries.
I didn't say "testicles" because some boys are born with their testes in the wrong place -- they're only called "testicles" if they're external.
As for ovaries, technically some female DSDs result in the baby being born with "ovarian streaks" -- same organ, different shape. If you want to be hyper-correct you could say "ovaries or ovarian streaks" for the female definition.
There’s a certain percentage that won’t be converted , no matter what, but I’ve actually seen some people turn around on this issue. Ultimately, it’s an argument about who owns the terminology, and at some point, I will make a language based argument, as opposed to the common sense one. But I guess what I’m saying is it’s an ideological marker. Anyone who believes that someone who has fathered a child is a woman or who has birthed a baby is a man cannot be reasoned with scientifically on this matter. But the rest of us should feel comfortable that our position is rock solid on the overwhelming number of cases before us including the most visible who are absolutely not exceptions biologically, ie Caitlyn Jenner, etc
From what I'm seeing, that percentage is not a small minority. It's actually a large segment of the population on the left. And I'm not talking about those who are political activists. The woke mind virus has infected a lot of people who otherwise are considered normal. Certainly we already are comfortable that our position is sound and rock solid. But our confidence is framed as bigotry until we can formulate a respond that can dispel the distortions that are used to justify nonsense as "truths" and "facts". Until then, institutions including scientific institutions are changing all languages and policies to turn the distortions into the norm.
The problem with the common sense definitions is that they're not saying such definitions is untrue. They're saying it's not the "only" truth, and that there are more truths out there. That's how people's minds begin to get confused, and how they fall for the ridiculous nonsense. Their make their additional truths sound like something that make sense.
Agreed. Ultimately, it’s a question about language. And I think we have to fight a multi frontal war. Part of the front is reassuring people who think that they’re going crazy that they’re not going crazy. And that’s kind of what I was aiming for. How to deprogram the lunacy is I agree much more difficult problem.
You are very honorable to write this article. I am impressed with your ability to be authentic with yourself to write truthfully and, in my opinion courageously.
I can look at myself in private and engage in authentic observations of my own weakness but I cannot recall ever having done so in public. I admire your genuineness.
I have opposed these gender illusions and outright lies from the moment I first saw them. I had no issue with anyone being allowed to embrace an illusion if they made the conscious choice as adults to live that way. Freedom for myself requires allowing freedom for others.
Yet when they reached beyond seeking tolerance toward demanding acceptance and coercing my use of the English language by demanding that I address them with their “preferred pronouns” or risk losing my job or my reputation and insisted that I dare not say a word against their forcing this foolishness onto impressionable children in the third grade, that was a “bridge too far”!
So now I am unwilling to even grant tolerance toward them ever again. In fact, if I had the wit, I would give their foolishness nothing more than a creative and well crafted insult!
Well stated, and don't beat yourself up too much because you feared the Wokenazis. They're a vicious, hateful, vengeful bunch, like their compatriots on the far right. Trump is a cult of personality; wokeness is a leaderless cult, perhaps more akin to Al Qaeda's separate cells; it doesn't matter that no one else knows what you're doing as long as you're working to destroy whoever it is you all agree you can't stand, who are better off dead.
Continue to speak out, Perplexed Jew...maybe one day we can all speak freely again.
I have to admit, I imagined this day, when I was 21, coming from a result of a Republican takeover. But here we are, in the left's version of an already-implemented version of Project 2025. Woke-style.
I don’t quite understand the logic here. How do you feel about m to f transgender persons in women’s prisons?
What an interesting discussion. As a member of the LGBTQ community, I agree with Ms. Rowling and Martina Navratilova that yes, transgender women often have unfair advantages. However, you know what folks?…I support all the transgender athletes who can compete. Why??? Because the international sports organizations are bigoted and mostly run by males who don’t even respect those who were BORN women. Even those who are BORN women don’t receive respect when it comes to the international organizations who run these sports. Maybe when those organizations fully recognize that ALL humans have the right to compete as athletes with full rights, privileges, and equal financial recompense, then maybe this debate might have meaning to someone like me. It is not my intention to be offensive, but as someone who has been marginalized for over 60 years (despite the fact that I am white and highly educated), I will continue to support any trans athlete who is allowed to compete.
Ok, a little anger there. I stand by my statements. Now I withdraw.
And what do you consider their own sex?
You do realize that trans athletes can compete against athletes of their own sex, right?
It cannot be a human right for trans people to compete against members of the opposite sex, because A HUMAN RIGHT IS A RIGHT THAT *ALL* HUMANS HAVE. Unless you think that ALL adult male athletes have the right to compete against female athletes, it can't be a "human right" for ANY adult male athletes to compete against female athletes.
I thought Dumbledore as gay was consistent with the text and the description of his friendship/unrequited love for Grindelwald. More obviously commercial and retconned is the entire US angle to the Fantastic Beasts films.
When Dumbledore became gay, I lost all respect for Rowling. When she started to say that trans women are really men, I thought she was stating the obvious. Then I taught a transgender history class, I anticipated discussing a spectrum of ideas—some controversial. I did not expect my students to come to the class to be affirmed as trans or allies. Until the political climate changes, I will not teach that class again. Rowling has stood strong against the winds of misogyny. I have a 30 year old trans daughter, who is not a politicized trans person. Radical trans activists make it more difficult for people like her to live their lives.
This gender confusion as to how we can 100% say whether someone is male or female has given me an obvious job opportunity. I have….ahem….a SUPERPOWER. Yes I really do. I can tell within at most 4 seconds whether someone is male or female. Usually it doesn’t take even the four seconds. The IOC should hire me. I know Superheroes don’t normally make money off their superpower but in this case I would charge as it would necessitate me having to be around IOC types. I gotta be paid to do that.
Better late than never
I get not “getting” Harry Potter as an adult. JKR has this far written seven wonderful detective novels (as Robert Galbraith) about Cormoran Strike and his partner Robin Ellacott. Check them out if you haven’t already! You would never know it’s the same writer, save for the deep understanding of friendship also found in the Potter novels.
The Witch Trials of JK Rowling introduced me to Bari Weiss’ The Free Press, and Honestly podcast - with its riveting story telling that wasn’t afraid to tackle a highly charged topic. It’s only because of JK’s unpopularity amongst the most online audiences that it’s not regarded in a higher manner IMO. While I don’t agree with everything Rowling has posted, she fights for things she believes in and doesn’t back down from the online mob.
You hit it here: you have to be brave in order to express yourself online these days, that’s not the sort of world we should aspire to. Bill
Maher calls this, “the one true opinion” and if you dare offer a counter to that, you can expect backlash; if your influence is great enough you risk employment, maybe even personal safety.
Today’s progressives are flirting with the type of censorship that is antithetical to actual liberalism. They are becoming just as fearful of free thinking as the radical right.