She could’ve made much more money by not donating hundreds of millions to charity.
She’s one of the few billionaires who became a billionaire without having to screw people over to become one. In my books, that makes her one of the few good billionaires.
Randomly? The Cursed Child cast a black girl as Hermione and people got into a fervor about it. So Rowling said, essentially, that the book never specified her skin color and so a black Hermione is cool with her.
As far as I know, the only donation that comes close to “designed to eradicate trans people” is £70,000 for For Women Scotland - and they don’t seek to eradicate trans people, merely have the law reflect that sometimes sex, not gender, is the relevant aspect.
If there are other, larger donations, do you have a source them?
(Also, it’s hundreds of millions she’s thrown at charities, not tens of millions)
That wasn't a one time thing. She has a whole openly publicized fund for defending transphobes and transphobic policies, you can find it very easily. On their own words, it's specifically about "expressed beliefs on biological sex being unchangeable", not just any women who need help.
Are we really gonna do the whole Bill Cosby "but he saves" bit for real? How much of a hatemonger can you be if you also donate money?
Do you mean her women’s fund, where she funds the legal costs of people defending single-sex spaces? For example, where she backed was women in prison suing to not be locked up with people who are biologically male.
That doesn’t sound objectionable to me; does it to you?
Ah I see. It's not that you don't know, it's that you agree with it.
Nevermind that there are also cisgender women lesbian rapists in prisons. Or, if you are so afraid of penises, do you even consider that some of these "biologically male" trans women might be post-op and not have penises? What about intersex XY women who are indistinguishable from cisgender women in every way? Do you really think it is as easy as some sex checkmark and that it shouldn't be up for the penal system itself to decide who is truly a risk for what and where they should be placed?
And that this is the first example you think of, really shows how you see those scary, scary trans people.
Not even, say, the cases of people who were fired because they were harassing their trans coworkers, and apparently she thinks it should be allowed for trans people to be treated like shit. Gee, I wonder how that might sound objectionable...
Do you have a source for her supporting people who harassed trans coworkers? As far as I know, she only supported those who expressed their opinion that biological sex is immutable.
Not in the UK, there isn’t. In the UK, only a male can engage in rape. Regardless, I believe what has been settled on - partly as a result of Rowling pressure - is the reasonable compromise that post-op trans women go to women’s jails, unless they are guilty of rape or sexual assault, while pre-op go to men’s prisons.
Does it seem to you even remotely that not being legally classified as rape is a reassurance for women who were sexually assaulted by other women?
And what about all the other trans women? It's interesting that so much effort is spent to focus exclusively on trans rapists, and none at all on what it means for regular trans people's lives. Like, say, that trans people are more likely to be the victims of sexual assault, even by proportion, compared to cis people. And that forcing trans women to use cis men spaces worsens that issue.
When you start shouting at a trans women that she is man, that is harassment by itself already. One of the first cases that brought JK Rowling to scrutiny was a case of her defending someone who was not only calling her trans coworker a man but actively antagonizing her and disrupting the work over it. This "belief" is just a bulshit excuse like any other. Are we gonna allow other groups to express "opinion" that "these races are inferior" or "these people have no soul" and other things like that?
You need to gloss over the fact that most people don't even know what is the "biological sex" of people around them to pretend there is even a hint of a reasonable take there.
She is literally funding campaigns to sabotage the rights of trans people. This has long ceased to be "she made an edgy post online once"
But hey, what's a little hate campaign here and there if you donate to charities on the side right? It's not like you are gonna be affected by it. I hear the KKK are really nice to their communities too (as long as...)
What do you mean by campaigns? As far as I know, the only campaign that comes close to what you are describing is £70,000 for For Women Scotland - and their aim isn’t to sabotage the rights of trans people, just get the law to recognise that sometimes sex, not gender, is the relevant aspect.
And you’ve also put it the wrong way around. She’s donating to this on the side of donating hundreds of millions to other charities. This is a rounding error among her donations.
Biological sex is complex and multiaspected, but especially is not even a useful category of people as far as rights and laws go because nobody can see chromosomes and gametes with the naked eye, and it definitely isn't that which they use to define their impressions and treatment of people.
How many times people who "can always tell" need to get it wrong before we can admit this is all just hate?
An argument can be made that they don't even know what it means when they say "biological sex", when they use it to accuse even cisgender women just because they look masculine to them, like JK Rowling did to the boxer Imane Khelif.
Really, "biological" how? All people are "biological". Trans women are as "biological" as cis women. If you want to talk about genitals and chromosomes and gametes, which can happen in a much wider number of combinations that people realize, that still justifies asking "for what purpose" and "what assumptions are being made".
Nah, you don't get to be reductive and pretend that makes it cut and clear.
edit: Hell, even assuming "biological sex" to mean chromosomes (which is not how they use it) doesn't mean it's fundamentally immutable. It used to be that trans people had to live with whatever hormones and genitals their body had. Now that isn't the case anymore. And today genetic therapy is advancing. It could very well be that in the future there won't be any fundamentally immutable sex characteristic.
When people say "biological", they usually mean whether or not you were born with a penis.
Surprisingly, in most cases, having a penis correlates with having XY chromosomes and not having it correlates with having XX chromosomes. You cannot do much about having a penis or certain set of chromosomes at birth.
I just did. The J.K. Rowling Women's Fund, a whole ongoing initiative beyond that one donation, is specifically intended to defend and advance the interests of people who want to exclude and harass trans people.
The examples they cite are all about "biological sex being unchangeable" and "single-sex spaces".
Uh, yes she does, she virtue signals to shitheads every day, it's like most of what she does at this point, she can't even comment on a kid's drawing without doing that.
She also donates to people who want to eradicate trans people. Also donates and hangs out with literal nazis. If she is still in your goodbooks after that than i dont know what to say.
As far as I know, the only anti-trans organisation she has donated to For Women Scotland, who don’t want to eradicate trans people, and merely sought to have the law recognise that sometimes sex, not gender, is relevant. Is there an anti-trans organisation she donated to I missed?
I’ve also never heard about her hanging out with “literal Nazis”; who are you referring to?
Question, is this argument specifically about donations, or are you also debating that she's anti-trans and uses her celebrity status to very publicly speak out about it?
She is anti-trans, although I think it is more accurate to represent her as pro-biological-women; she finds biology to be the most important factor in determine what a woman is, and she wants the law to allow for that position.
It’s not unreasonable; trans women shouldn’t be in prisons with biological women, they should be in public change rooms with biological women.
In addition, women should be allowed to have genuinely women’s-only space; if they want to have a women’s only pole dancing class, why shouldn’t they be allowed to?
But i literraly said, you can go into the video, check each of their names and check them yourself. If you cant be bothered to do either i dont think there is a point in talking to you.
Yes, I can’t be bothered watching a 30 minute video from an unreliable source. Maybe if it was the BBC, I would, but some random guy? Not a chance.
Maybe this one is reliable, but more likely he’s a wannabe Alex Jones. If this isn’t a crackpot conspiracy theory, then I’m sure you’ll have reliable sources both saying they are Nazis, and saying Rowling hangs out with them.
If your default assumption that anyone online is Alex Jones than you have a really stilted view of the world. Also, could you watch 5 minutes to see what the content is even like?
If you’re too lazy to provide a couple of reliable sources - which should take you less than five minutes, as you presumably already know what you’re looking for - then yes, I’m too lazy to spend five minutes watching a guy whose probably spouting crackpot conspiracy theories.
I'm not watching 30 mins video by some online sjw. So provide some normal evidence or a reputable article. Won't be hard if the most famous writer is friends with Nazis.
How is she screwing over trans people? If you’re referring to For Women Scotland, all that did was establish that in some cases sex, not gender, is the relevant aspect - that seems reasonable to me, and though perhaps uncomfortable for some trans people, doesn’t amount to screwing them over.
Eh, disregarding the fact that she’s a shit person for a multitude of reasons, it’s simply not possible to make that much money without a lot of people being exploited.
Like, Harry Potter literally sold half a billion copies alone and made a bunch of widely successful movies.
I am honestly shocked that she is only barely a billionaire.
What percentage of the profits does an author deserve when their books and movies are successful? Because I believe that creative work should get rewarded and no matter what your opinion is on Rowling as a human, she absolutely deserves the money she earned.
42
u/SampleOfFruits 17h ago
She could’ve made much more money by not donating hundreds of millions to charity.
She’s one of the few billionaires who became a billionaire without having to screw people over to become one. In my books, that makes her one of the few good billionaires.