JK Rowling

Perhaps you missed that i was specifically talking to to OP in that post, and addressing the points she made. You seemed to think I was talking about you. I wasn't.

However to address a few of the things you said to me here:

You do provide examples of Rowling's transphobia and I haven't, nor have most people, disputed them But as the OP says that's besides the point. You haven't shown how her transphobia has grown into homophobia and when people try to discuss that you either refer to her transphobia, point out that she associates with homophobes or sarcastically ridicule someone's right to even ask the questions. That's hardly good faith discussion. You weren't met with fingers in the ears, you were met with questions and discussion.

You were met with a homophobic rant, and it was disgusting. Thankfully it was mod sanctioned and the user thread-banned, there are plenty of other posters though so you can gage with them.

I actually suggested that OP was soap-boxing, again not you, and asked could they explain to me the purpose of the thread. This is not back seat modding, this is engagement. You say i'm some random poster - well I guess I am, I'm not sure how i go about being a specific poster however. Should i post a number of agreeable posts first before I get to question the OP? I have not invalidated anyone's experiences here, in fact that's exactly what was concerning me about the OPs gatekeeping of homophobia. Nor have I defined anyone. Maybe you're confusing me with someone else?

I have attacked no one. I have calmly, politely asked questions and made my points in as impersonal a manner as possible. It's disingenuous to call them attacks.

To use your duck analogy - OP said "Eggs are turning into ducks. Luck at JK - She's was an egg now she's a duck", a lot of posters said "Is she a duck? I can see no evidence of that, why do you think that?" and you responded by saying telling about all the evidence she was an egg and how she hangs out in a duck pond.

Your point about Rowling "Straightsplaining" is difficult. On one hand I get your point, why should a lesbian not get to define their own identity? what right does someone else have to tell you what you are? The idea of that seems absolutely wrong.

But on the other hand the term and the associated connotation is problematic. I mean is it only bad because a straight person is saying it? Wouldn't it also be bad if one lesbian was invalidating another's experience. It might just be that it's worse because of the power dynamic between straight and non-straight communities, I'm not sure?

Added to that, if straight people are not allowed a definition of what being a lesbian is, then how can we accuse them of homophobia? I mean the first step to respect is understanding, and they can't understand with being able to talk about what it is, right?

It's important to note that the other paragraph related to "Straightsplaining" is the important one, it's where I empathise with other human beings and try to understand their experience. you might want to think about why you liked the two paragraphs where I criticised and ignore the one where I connect.

Fair enough - I misinterpreted.

Listen, to depersonalise this a bit, I think the has to be acknowledged that JK Rowling absolutely is transphobic. By definition. She does not think transwomen are women. She thinks they are worthy of respect, wants to help them doesn't think she is actively hurting them, but she does not think they are women. That by definition is transphobic.

Now she has her reasons for this transphobia, that she and others might feel are valid, and we can debate how reasonable they actually are. But anyone who is trying to say that she is not transphobic while she denys transwomen are women is just being intellectually dishonest.

To argue, like some poster here do, that one is not a transphobe because really they don't believe in transgenderism is just bunk.

That said, none of that talks to her supposed homophobia, which still no one seems to be able to corroborate, apart from guilt by association.

Sure that's my point. You don't believe that. Bad you might have valid reasons not to believe that - fair enough. But you can't both not believe transwomen are women and not be transphobic. It's not logically possible.

So yes both you and JK Rowling are transphobic but feel you have good logical reasons for it.

"you can't both not believe transwomen are women and not be transphobic. It's not logically possible."

You've just made that up in your head. It's not true.

Believing that human biology is still real is not transphobic, unless you decide to define transphobic with your own new definition, again all in your own head.

Christians think non-believers' souls are damned to hell, which I think is nonsense. Trans ideology folk claim non-believers are "transphobes" because we don't see any evidence of gender souls.

Blaire White IS a transwoman and doesn't believe any of this nonsense, nor do many transwomen - are they transphobes?

it is quite strange how much people care what JK Rowling thinks. People who will almost certainly never meet her or have anything to do with her.

What JK Rowling thinks or writes on Twitter isn't an issue at all in my opinion. Trans people do face genuine issues, but JK Rowling's opinions are not one of them, yet they are discussed endlessly. It's farcical, but reflects something in modern culture.