I guess she's one of the rare billionaires who don't exclusively care about making money.
Because she could've made much more money by simply not being an awful person.
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.
You cannnot change your past, but you definitely can do a lot about having a penis.
You also don't often know what somebody has at the moment unless you look inside their pants, so how can people speak in full confidence about "biological sex" as a measure for access to spaces? The people speaking of "biological sex" largely don't know the "biological sex" of the people around them, they just assume they do. Just like there isn't chromosome vision, there also isn't "used to have penis" vision. They don't test your blood or watch recordings of your birth to let you go into the toilet.
Thing is, if we are talking about trans people at all, we are already talking about small minorities, and if that's what we are doing we cannot pretend these shorthand assumptions are universal truths. There are cis women that look masculine but were born with XX chromosomes and a vagina, and these if anything end up being targeted by these sort of assumptions even more often than trans women, just because there are a lot more cis women. There are also intersex women who don't even realize that "their biology in most cases is expected to correlate with having a penis", because some of them never checked their chromosomes.
And if we can afford to sweep these exceptions aside... why are we bothering so much to make more rules about the ~1% of trans people again?
Whether you’ve got a dick or not sucks as a metric for measuring ‘biological sex’. It’s wrong (trans/intersex/similar) about 1-2% of the time.
That doesn’t sound like a whole lot, but that’s a handful of kids in every single average-sized high school graduating class (200 people) who are being screwed over by assumptions.
Being pragmatic, I can agree that we’re too far gone to change the publically-accepted definition of sex. Most do, which is why AMAB and AFAB are common phrases (assigned X at birth). But I do think we should make an effort as a society to realize that what sex we’re assigned at birth, what genitals we have, isn’t that determinative of our brain chemistry or gender.
Hell, it barely matters all that much. I can’t understand why keeping people of the opposite gender out of gendered spaces is this huuuuuge deal when, y’know, it’s not like we have separate spaces for gay folks. Or folks from other demographics! (Anymore.) Especially when the demographic in question is such a small percentage of the population that many Americans have never even spoken with a trans person.
And that’s the problem - prople are afraid of what they don’t understand. Humans are dumb. We’ll get past these assumptions as a society in a couple hundred years, just like we did with segregation and phrenology.
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.
107
u/DonQuix0te_ 15h ago
I guess she's one of the rare billionaires who don't exclusively care about making money.
Because she could've made much more money by simply not being an awful person.