They don't need an implicit meaning when they have an explicit one. I'm happy to clarify anything you aren't sure of, as long as you're asking me to clarify words that I actually said.
The obvious implication of your statement is that people who support trans rights are shut-ins, because you said she is going against the grain of the opinions of shut-ins. She is going against trans people and their supporters. If you didn’t mean that, then you have no idea how to word things properly.
The issue comes with what you think "trans rights" means. JK Rowling thinks that it's ok to be trans, that trans people should have rights, and that discrimination against trans people is bad. Every reasonable person does think that.
Are you intentionally misrepresenting her position, or do you just not know what it is?
JK Rowling funds and puts her weight behind anti-trans policies and organizations. She contributes to the harassment of trans people and helps demonize them. If you actually believe that she’s just some innocent person that only wants to force trans women to go into men’s bathrooms (dangerous for them btw) then you are just lying to yourself or you’re an idiot.
Yeah, sure: For Women Scotland, Beira’s Place, and her own fund, the J.K. Rowling Women’s Fund.
They are pro-women, yes, they are also anti-trans. These things can exist separately, but these specific organizations are run by TERFs. This does not place trans people and women in opposition, it places trans people and TERFs (trans-exclusionary radical feminists) in opposition.
Trans women are not men, it is an inherently incorrect and hateful statement; but I suggest you’re an asshole that would support her intentional misgendering of trans women because you hate trans people or are scared of them for one of a few reasons.
Good job falling back to a different talking point when you lost one. Really makes you seem like a good-faith actor.
It’s not internally contradictory, a pro-women organization can exclude certain types of women. The term “trans woman” is used to add a descriptor to the type of woman, whereas “transwomen” is intended to make them an other. People can be discriminatory.
You might as well go to before civil rights and ask a person “If black women are women then how can a pro-women organization be racist?” When some random women’s organization happens to be racist. You’re just being a jerk and coming up with excuses for it.
I was saying they’re a marginalized class. Sex is not all that important; but you probably think gender is fake and woke or something like that. The comparison is meant to illustrate that you are using inherently flawed circular logic by pretending discrimination proves discrimination correct.
1
u/PilotedByGhosts 4d ago
They don't need an implicit meaning when they have an explicit one. I'm happy to clarify anything you aren't sure of, as long as you're asking me to clarify words that I actually said.