I am SO tired of people demonizing J. K. Rowling for being a transphobe and a bigot without ever having paid attention to what’s she said and written. In fact, she’s sympathetic to trans people, but, like me, thinks that trans rights on occasion clash with the rights of biological women, and in those cases the rights of natal women can take precedence (this occurs in sports, prisons, and a few other circumstances). And, like Rowling, I have been somewhat demonized by taking a stand identical to hers (I was, for example, recently branded “anti-trans” by the head of our department’s DEI Committee, clearly by people who have ignored what I’ve written, too).
But I kvetch. This Substack post by Katie Pinns tries to un-demonize Rowling by actually showing us what she wrote. Now you know that won’t change the minds of those like Emma Watson who have parted ways with Rowling on no good grounds: gender ideologues are impervious to the facts. But at least Pinns has Rowling’s statements down in black and white, and I’ve added one important link. Click screenshot to read:
I’ll give some quotes from Pinns (indented) who in turn quotes Rowling (doubly indented). There are several pages worth, so check for yourself if you think I’m cherry-picking.
Few public figures attract as much noise as J.K. Rowling. For many people, the controversy around her name has become so thick with slogans, screenshots, and second‑hand outrage that her actual words have been buried under the reaction to them. People repeat that she “hates trans people,” or that women’s crisis centres are “transphobic,” without ever checking what she has actually said.
So this piece goes back to the source. Not the discourse. Not the memes. Her words.
Rowling’s central point is simple: sex is real, and it matters. She has said:
“If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction. If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased… It isn’t hate to speak the truth.”
This is the foundation of her position. She argues that biological sex shapes women’s lives, especially in relation to male violence, discrimination, and safeguarding. She also says explicitly that recognising sex does not erase or demean trans people.
Her concern is that if society stops acknowledging sex, women lose the language they need to describe their experiences. That’s not a fringe view; it’s the basis of decades of women’s rights advocacy.
Rowling has repeatedly said she supports trans people’s right to live free from discrimination:
“I respect every trans person’s right to live any way that feels authentic and comfortable to them. I’d march with you if you were discriminated against on the basis of being trans.”
She also describes feeling “kinship” with trans people because both women and trans people are vulnerable to male violence. Her objection is not to trans people themselves, but to the idea that acknowledging sex is inherently hateful.
And, as Pinns notes, Rowling makes these pronouncements not to “erase” or demonize trans people, but to prompt a discussion about clashes of “rights” as well as whether there’s a need for affirmative care, including surgery, on people below an age of consent. As Pinns says, “Much of the public anger directed at her is based on claims she never made. Her insistence on correcting the record is part of why she continues to speak.”
There are more quotes from Rowling, and you can read her longer explanations of her views at places like this one. She has of course been subject to a multitude of threats of violence, but she’s stood her ground, responding with humor and not a small amount of snark, which makes her enemies even madder. Here’s a quote from her sober and revealing essay linked in the first sentence of this paragraph:
Well, I’ve got five reasons for being worried about the new trans activism, and deciding I need to speak up.
Firstly, I have a charitable trust that focuses on alleviating social deprivation in Scotland, with a particular emphasis on women and children. Among other things, my trust supports projects for female prisoners and for survivors of domestic and sexual abuse. I also fund medical research into MS, a disease that behaves very differently in men and women. It’s been clear to me for a while that the new trans activism is having (or is likely to have, if all its demands are met) a significant impact on many of the causes I support, because it’s pushing to erode the legal definition of sex and replace it with gender.
The second reason is that I’m an ex-teacher and the founder of a children’s charity, which gives me an interest in both education and safeguarding. Like many others, I have deep concerns about the effect the trans rights movement is having on both.
The third is that, as a much-banned author, I’m interested in freedom of speech and have publicly defended it, even unto Donald Trump.
The fourth is where things start to get truly personal. I’m concerned about the huge explosion in young women wishing to transition and also about the increasing numbers who seem to be detransitioning (returning to their original sex), because they regret taking steps that have, in some cases, altered their bodies irrevocably, and taken away their fertility. Some say they decided to transition after realising they were same-sex attracted, and that transitioning was partly driven by homophobia, either in society or in their families.
. . . .Which brings me to the fifth reason I’m deeply concerned about the consequences of the current trans activism.
I’ve been in the public eye now for over twenty years and have never talked publicly about being a domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor. This isn’t because I’m ashamed those things happened to me, but because they’re traumatic to revisit and remember. I also feel protective of my daughter from my first marriage. I didn’t want to claim sole ownership of a story that belongs to her, too. However, a short while ago, I asked her how she’d feel if I were publicly honest about that part of my life, and she encouraged me to go ahead.
I’m mentioning these things now not in an attempt to garner sympathy, but out of solidarity with the huge numbers of women who have histories like mine, who’ve been slurred as bigots for having concerns around single-sex spaces.
Finally, I’ll quote Pinns again:
Much of the backlash against Rowling spills over onto women’s crisis centres, rape support services, and safeguarding charities that maintain female-only spaces. These organisations often base their policies on:
– the reality of male violence
– the needs of traumatised women
– legal exemptions that allow single-sex services
– safeguarding obligations
Rowling’s position aligns with these long-standing principles. Calling such services “transphobic” erases the reasons they exist.
Despite the headlines, Rowling has not said that trans people shouldn’t exist, shouldn’t have rights, or are a threat. She has not argued against healthcare for trans adults. She has not advocated discrimination.
As the West starts to realize that it’s unfair for biological men, however they identify, to enter some women’s spaces, or to compete in women’s sports, or that there are dangers in “affirmative care” doled out to adolescents who aren’t of age, I’m hoping that Rowling will no longer be immediately dismissed by ideologues, but that her arguments will be taken seriously and answered.
Simply believing in the reality of biological sex and that there are only two sexes means that, to many people, you are anti-trans. Using phrases like “pregnant women” or “male and female” means that, to many people, you are anti-trans. Refusing to accept that an obvious male in a dress is completely equivalent in every way to a normal female human adult born with XX chromosomes just because he says he feels that deep inside he is a woman means that, to many people, you are anti-trans.
Those things can be true, but the problem is when you apparently cant help but to say things like “obviously a man in a dress” and so on…I can guarantee theres are people in your life, or who youve met, that you have absolutely no idea were trans. And its your reaction to them, that make it anti-trans. Let’s go over some things. Your birth sex, sexuality and sexual orientation are all different things. There are also people with different chromosomes than the two youre saying. That’s been proven over and over and isn’t up for debate if were going to talk seriously.. XXY and XYY people can look like boys or girls, but biologically arent either one. And sometimes they can have children. They make up almost 2% of the population, so we’ve all met people like this before, maybe we knew and maybe we didnt. But the point is you dont have to “refuse to accept” the way someone is, but it’s pretty fucking shitty. Your idea of ‘its just some pervert that wants to get into the women’s locker and spy on them’ or ‘they just want to win and easy trophy’n is so fucked. Nobody is putting on a dress to win a competition, because of everything else they’ll have to go through that you couldn’t even begin to understand a fraction of the shame and embarassment from other people. But one thing is abundantly clear, is that the rates of suicide is so much higher with these people. And so much lower once they get to a place where they can be okay with themselves. And it’s a little narcissistic to think that it has anything to do with you, your acceptance or comfort around them and if youre okay with them taking a shit next to you.
So luckily, you and me aren’t one of these people, but the difference is that im aware that just because im not that way, doesn’t mean that another person couldn’t be different. And that Im not going to tell someone else what they are isn’t right or okay, or biologically possible, or acceptable, or that they’re an obvious man in a dress, and question them put their sex in quotes, or any other of the shitty behavior that is specifically to cut them down or make fun of them. many of which, are in your comment.
First, your comment is a rant, written sloppily and cursing. Also, you insult other readers, which is a violation of the Roolz.
More important, your assertions are flat wrong XXY and XYY individuals, with Klinefelter’s and Jacob’s syndrome respectively, are both biological males who produce testicular tissue. Jacobs males are usually fertile, while Klinefelter males often cannot produce sperm in their rudimentary testicles. They both meet the definition of biological males. Further, together they are less than 1/500 of the population, or .2%, not 2%, and neither are “trans”. Why you bring up these DSDs in conjunction with the trans issue is not clear.
You have no idea what you’re talking about, so I suggest you go and do some reading on DSDs.
Thank you for explaining this. I’ve seen a number of people (ie Colin Wright) explain this, so clearly, over and over. And for some reason it doesn’t sink in.
People with gender dysphoria need mental health treatment. They don’t need exogenous hormones meant for the other sex nor the removal of healthy body parts as a first line of treatment. The rest of your post is not germane to what I wrote.
Exactly right! This applies to adults, teens, and children.
Thanks (sarcasm) Will for dismissing the very real fear that many of us have about biological, heterosexual males infiltrating spaces where we are vulnerable as discomfort about “someone taking a shit next to us”. I suggest that in addition to taking Jerry’s biology lesson you also educate yourself about the pervasiveness of male sexual violence against women and grow some empathy!
Thank you!
Thanks to you and to Katie Pinns for this. And to J.K. Rowling for staying not only sane but also capable of sharp humor in the face of all that has been thrown at her.
Absolutely!
It’s terrible that she has been so marginalized, even threaten with violence. But I think that the tide may slowly be turning back toward sanity.
You are probably correct (in my opinion). One data point. AOC has taken her pronouns out of her bio.
I really hope so!
“As the West starts to realize that it’s unfair for biological men . . .”
As the highly-credentialed, white-collar professionals of the left wing in the West start to acknowledge . . .
I have few heroes (people can be the worst humans, even the ones I’d thought done good), but Rowling is one of them. She’s like Masih Alinejad; absolutely right but fearless and ferocious in the face of real hate and danger.
At the very heart of trans ideology and what it means today to be transgender is this oft-repeated fundamental tenet: “Trans people know who they are.”
What this means is that if a male “knows” deep down that they’re a woman, they are (she is.) Denying this in any way or for any reason — they can’t know such a thing, it’s not how sex works, there are negative consequences for this, etc — means you’re withholding the basic human decency and respect that you’d give to anyone else. Being granted to know our own selves is, they assume, a human right from which other rights are derived.
I mean, if a female told you she knew she was a woman, you’d accept that, wouldn’t you? Bigotry. Case closed. Rowling can’t appease them unless she capitulates, and even then it would be considered too little too late. She ruined Harry Potter for them.
I think there is a second bottom to this box. The idea is the same as other rights movements: “Let’s ride on the coattails of the success of the gay rights movement and the world will accept us as well.” Only that the Trans movement started late, and from the very beginning on an aggressive note: “We have nothing to prove, you must accept us!” was the keynote from the very beginning. They don’t usually bother to try and convince. They impose the view that everyone who is not with them, or questions them, is against them and by that very fact is an “awful person.” They will of course present their case, but anyone who, like Rowling, finds it unconvincing, will be vilified.
Like the schizophrenic who “knows” he is Napoleon Bonaparte, the starving anorexic who “knows” she is morbidly obese, the Christian who “knows” Jesus loves her, or the Muslim who “knows” Allah rejoices every time they kill Jews, etc. Just because someone claims to “know” something does not mean that what they “know” has any relation to truth.
The long history of discrimination in our culture and the counter-valing victory of toleration has led to a knee-jerk reaction on the part of many people to any assertion of intolerance. The worst thing you can be called is a bigot (although that word has fallen out of favor) or some flavor of phobe that relates to other people’s beliefs or practices. (It’s still ok to be an Anglophobe.) The trans lobby (among others) has taken advantage of this to obfuscate around unreasonable practices in order to demonize reasonable discussion.
Only yesterday, the Anglosphere was said to suffer from an epidemic of “pronounphobia”, “Islamophobia”, “Transphobia”, and “white fragility”. To cure this dangerous outbreak, our establishment prescribed a regime of flagellant “trainings”, struggle-sessions, and similar exercises. But the prescribed regime apparently was as ineffective as numerous earlier treatments (Freudian Analysis, Marxism-Leninism, Electroconvulsive Therapy, Recovered Memory Therapy, Socialist Realism in literature) designed to reconstruct the human mind. Alas, alas.
The JKR essay on ‘trans’ is to be (predictably) recommended. She is a great writer. She has (of late) written a series of detective novels under the pen name of ‘Robert Galbraith’. They are (in my opinion) quite good.
Agreed: I love her Cormoran Strike / Robin Ellacott detective series.
I also love the Harry Potter series and I’ve read them three times, much to my own astonishment.
J. K. Rowling is a great story teller.
It has been interesting to see the very strange discourse about JK Rowling that has prevailed. Those who respond to her sound like over indulged teenagers with not a bone of logic in them. When she says she thinks men should not be allowed in intimate female spaces, they respond with – she’s trying to unalive us. Difficult to hold any coherent conversation with anyone who makes that connection from the first statement.
Can someone explain what those “trans rights” are, which JKR and our host say they support, but which trans people claim they don’t currently have? Is it habeas corpus? Is it freedom of speech and assembly? To apply for welfare? To sue in regards a tort? No one is proposing to rescind those existing rights so far as I know. What’s the fuss about?
Trans people (the men, anyway) demand the right to “live our best selves” by being regarded as women. That is, to have the same rights as “other” women have: to enter women’s changing rooms, to compete in women’s sport and job quotas, to be incarcerated in women’s prisons, and to be accepted as clients at shelters that exclude men. But these demands cross the very “reasonable limits” that JKR and PCC(E) place on the rights they are willing to let transfolk have, because they conflict with women’s rights and safety. The trans activists reject these limits because society says, in imposing them, that you transwomen aren’t “really” women after all. We’ll play along for shits and giggles, we say, but when it comes down to hard stools, you “biological men” must get out of women’s spaces. That really does “erase” their gender-based claim to be women. Where they most want it, we deny it.
I ask JKR and PCC(E): Are there any rights that trans people don’t now have, which you would agree with them that they should have or are at risk of losing to religious bigots? If all you’re saying is that thugs shouldn’t be able to get away with beating up transfolk, which is all JKR says in her long 2020 piece, then I’d agree we’re on the same page. But I have the feeling there is more here, that I’m just not getting.
Her statement, according to the unsourced Pinns quotation PCC(E) cites with double indent (“I respect . . . “) raises two questions:
So what does this quotation mean?? What sort of discrimination would get JKR out in the streets to march against it? Maybe I’ll ask her but I’m always interested in what this hive says.
I can only speak for myself here; but I suspect things fall out this way:
JKR explicitly says that trans people have full civil rights (as do I and the US Supreme Court (Bostock, 2020)). They should not be discriminated against in all the familiar areas: Employment, housing, etc., etc.
She (and I) only have a few caveats to protect women’s single-sex domains, such as: public toilets, changing rooms, prisons, women’s shelters, and women’s sports.
Men are larger and stronger than women, in general, and therefore represent a unique threat to women which is not symmetrical (women are almost never threats to men). This is the reason why women’s single-sex domains exists. This is the reason why there are men’s and women’s divisions in sports. (Note that many top women’s athletes have a physique that is rather more like a typical man’s physique that a typical woman’s physique, such has shoulder to hip proportion. This is not random.) (In addition, every time I can remember in recent years, when there’s been a shooting attributed to a woman, the woman turns out to be a trans-woman, that is: Born male and perhaps even having no surgery or hormone therapy.)
I oppose self-identification as a legal means for a man to “become” a woman because it allows men to invade those single-sex women’s domains and dominate the women in them. That’s wrong. This is where women’s rights and trans right come into conflict. And I come down firmly on the side of women’s rights in these cases. (Again, the situation is not symmetric: Trans-men pose essentially no risk to men.)
Another area where self-ID is unfair to women is when noting whether there is representation by women in places like corporate board rooms and legislative bodies. We all (I think) recognize why it’s important for, for instance, black people to represent themselves in legislative bodies. The same holds true for women. If the goal of the trans-activists is met and they erase the idea of sex, then the political class of “women” is erased, at Ms. Rowling points out.
Having read extensively what JKR and our host have written on this subject, I think they would agree.
I reject the notion that black people should represent themselves in legislatures, unless the voters (black and white) in the constituency choose to elect a black representative. If despite tutelage from their betters they elect a white guy, that’s not discrimination at all.
No discrimination in employment. Hmm. A Board of Directors decides it wants to replace three male Directors with women, to achieve the progressive goal of “gender parity.” (That’s probably illegal in America, but let’s assume it’s legal through some sort of DEI shenanigans.) The Board puts out the call through its network for suitable women to stand. Three do. One is a transwoman, i.e., a man who says he’s a woman. (Let’s assume it’s obvious from looking at him that he’s a man. Or maybe he is “openly” trans and proud. A stealth transwoman would pose other challenges.) Three “women”, three spots. Looks like a shoo-in.
The sole woman currently on the Board cries foul. This is a protected women’s “space”, she objects. Seating him would erase the political class of women. We Directors never intended to bring on a man in woman-face for a female-quota position, did we? We meant real biological women, surely, the ones striving to make the work family-friendly or whatever it is women on Boards do. Well, what did we mean? Most of the Board doesn’t know what they agreed to. They just nodded along with the gender parity proposal because it sounded good. But they’re pretty sure they didn’t mean men in dresses.
After a fight in camera, the Board decides to seat the two actual women and leave the other seat with the incumbent man still in it, until a suitable woman turns up. The rejected transwoman sues, citing Bostock. The Board, in defence, argues correctly that Bostock said only that an employer couldn’t fire a man for being homosexual or saying he was going to be working as a woman from here on. It didn’t address the competing rights of people who say they are trans against the other protected class, women. “What should you do if you see an endangered animal eating an endangered plant?” as an old jibe went.
What say you? Discrimination against an oppressed minority? Or protecting women’s quota rights as a political class to enjoy privilege on a corporate Board?
I think the intention of the quote here is to more or less equate trans people with transvestites who have adopted the mannerisms or attitudes of the sex they’re imitating. They do have the additional quality of believing they actually are the sex they’re imitating but, like believing in God, this is to be considered a private view which doesn’t place any obligation on others.
Being “discriminated against on the basis of being trans” would therefore involve being refused service, housing, or employment simply because one has these proclivities, and in a situation where it doesn’t or shouldn’t matter.
What matters and what doesn’t depends on what one cares about. Because I don’t care about women’s sport, I could say “being trans” doesn’t matter (to me) if men win all the medals.
Trans does “matter” in my view as an employer. I do care about not hiring people whose belief that they are the sex they aren’t doesn’t remain a private, quasi-religious view in their own hearts but makes obligations on others to acquiesce to them. Trans-identification worn on the sleeve is a useful tell for Cluster B traits, especially if the job applicant berates my receptionist or me for misgendering him though a slip in the use of “Sir” before or during the job interview. Demanded pronouns on the resumé are a sure sign that he’s going to alienate all the other employees, especially the women over bathroom use if he gets hired. I won’t even interview him.
The trans employee will disrupt the work culture and cause my good female staff to leave if I have to discipline them against misgendering. And I’m not renovating the plumbing just for him. So yes I will discriminate against him in hiring, Bostock and Canadian Human Rights codes notwithstanding. Just need plausible deniability. Much easier than having to fire him later for “being” trans.
As a landlord, I know that transfolk are frequently unemployed and homeless — minority stress they call it. What I call it is “likely to stop paying rent” and so I won’t rent to a transwoman if I can help it.
This is a principled argument for discrimination against trans people. By definition they have something wrong with them: a demanding, publicly expressed false belief they can’t shut up about, which other protected categories don’t have. I want to hire and rent to mentally healthy people, not to the damaged who will have trouble doing the job and paying the rent. I’ll bet JKR doesn’t have any transwomen working for her, and she likely hasn’t had to rent out her spare rooms to help with the mortgage, no matter how affectionately she regards the one or two she knows as friends.
{Signing off: Da Roolz}
Funny you target misinformation about JKR in the same breath you spread misinformation about Emma Watson, who did not “part ways” with JKR. JKR is the one who parted ways with EW and attacked her, while EW has only ever said nice things about JKR and was even attacked for not denouncing JKR when it all went down.
EW literally only made two tweets, neither of which referenced JKR. “Trans people are who they say they are and deserve to live their lives without being constantly questioned or told they aren’t who they say they are,” and “I want my trans followers to know that I and so many other people around the world see you, respect you and love you for who you are.”
Those are literally the only public statements she’s made that are even tangentially related to JKR since 2010, aside from the interview last year where she once again tried to reach out to JKR. Who once again attacked EW like an unhinged narcissist.
No, there are more than two tweets, and they parted ways because of an ideological conflict, with Watson starting it by deliberately attacking positions that Rowling held after Rowling’s books made Watson famous in her movies.
From AI:
Core Sources of Conflict
Differing Ideologies (2020–Present): The rift began in June 2020 when Rowling published a series of tweets and an essay questioning gender identity and advocating for “sex-based rights”. Watson immediately publicly opposed these views, stating, “Trans people are who they say they are and deserve to live their lives without being constantly questioned”.
The “Witch” Remark (2022): Rowling cited a “turning point” at the 2022 BAFTAs when Watson, while presenting an award, stated she was “here for all of the witches”. This was widely interpreted as a targeted show of support for trans women in opposition to Rowling’s “gender critical” stance.
Public vs. Private Communication: Rowling has expressed deep hurt over what she calls a “public betrayal”. She alleged that after “pouring petrol on the flames” at the BAFTAs, Watson sent her a one-line note saying “I’m so sorry for what you’re going through”. Rowling criticized this as an empty gesture of “kindness” while Watson’s public actions allegedly contributed to the “mob” against her.
Recent Escalation (2024–2025): In 2024, Rowling stated she would “never forgive” Watson and Daniel Radcliffe for using their platforms to support a movement she believes erodes women’s rights. More recently, in September 2025, Rowling called Watson “ignorant of how ignorant she is,” arguing that Watson’s wealth and privilege insulate her from the real-world dangers she claims trans inclusion poses to women in shelters and hospitals.
As for misinforming people about Rowling, I used her own words and you don’t question that. The parting of ways was an ideological one, and though Watson realized that she made a misstep and tried to repair it, you don’t attack the ideology of the person who raised you to glory without causing friction.
Thx JAC, for your post in defence of JKR. You are correct that JK Rowling is strong and clear in her stance that humans cannot change sex and that all claims that men can become women and belong in girl’s and women’s private spaces and sports are either innocently delusional or intentionally deceptive. But you are wrong that you and she are aligned. JK Rowling has been clear in recognizing that this craze is yet another postmodernist word game of the authoritarian woke and she doesn’t play along. You, on the other hand, have allowed yourself to believe that there is such a thing as a “trans person” and you do play along. I’m aware that you’ve said that you do this for politeness. Never-the-less, it means that you publicly entertain the possibility that humans can change sex. JK Rowling does not.
Once again, thank you for your support for JK Rowling and TERF Island.
No, I have never said that humans can change sex; I said they can change gender but biological sex is immutable.
I too have acknowledged in the past that sex and gender are different things, but in retrospect I don’t think there’s any such thing as gender. Things can be “gendered,” ie girls’ toys v. boys’ toys, but I wish we had never gone down this road, saying that people can choose their gender. I wish we could simply say that people have different personalities and preferences, which is fine, and leave it at that.
Yes, I’ve heard you say that in interviews and on your site at various times. I respect you a great deal and it pains me to be at odds on this and see you hold such beliefs. In the interest of brevity, I will just point out that your expressed belief in such a thing is yet another example of the chasm between your viewpoint and those expressed by JK Rowling. She is more clear and strong in her statements, by which I mean she leaves no room for misinterpretation. For reference, her views align closely with those of Dr Helen Joyce, Dr Colin Wright, and Prof Emma Hilton, to name a few.
Having said that, if you have found research with strong evidence that disproves the null hypothesis regarding “gender identity” (GI), then please share them. Every study I’ve looked at has either been of woeful quality or commits the fatal flaw of assuming that GI is real (begging the question fallacy) or both. The liberal and scientist in me compels me to withhold belief when evidence is insufficient, especially when there’s a much more obvious, natural, and easily verified explanation for the “trans craze”.
Thank you again for your fine website.
Not meaning to be a bother but I just read an astute (and relevant) point made by Helen Joyce at the CASC conference in Adelaide, SA in 2025. Her keynote, “Why gender care isn’t science and isn’t medicine included the following:
“Unlike all other areas of medicine, gender medicine is not medicine because nobody knows what it is to have a healthy gender…
And without knowing what it is to have a healthy gender, or gender identity, it’s not possible to say what it means to have a malfunctioning one, what might have caused that, and how it can be treated. Saying someone has gender dysphoria is like saying their humours are out of balance…”
I attach a link in case you are interested. She’s an excellent speaker and writer.
https://www.thehelenjoyce.com/p/why-gender-medicine-isnt-science
Such a shame that the world is a place where facts are buried under a mountain of misinformation and opinion. The space for reasoned discourse is pretty much gone now, one wrong word and the weight of public opinion can ruin your life.
“Trans people are who they say they are and deserve to live their lives without being constantly questioned”. Lamentable that this line of thought leaves out those of us who say we are Napoleon, Elvis, a descendent of Tsar Ivan the Terrible, or a trans-kangaroo. Isn’t restricting the term “trans” to one category another kind of phobia? Let us call it “sortphobia”, and denounce it as a right-wing dog-whistle or worse. Come to think of it, the
term “dog-whistle” is itself a microaggression against trans-canids.