this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2026
369 points (89.0% liked)
Political Memes
11499 readers
1675 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Here's a fun one: She accused cisgender women's Olympic gold medalist in boxing, Imane Khelif, of "being a man". Seemingly just because she's black.
Anyway, back on topic: https://www.yahoo.com/news/j-k-rowling-uses-harry-175223238.html?guccounter=1
Ok, but that article doesn't actually say anything different? She's donating to organizations that are pushing against legislation that say trans women are the same as biological women. They aren't saying trans people shouldn't exist or shouldn't have healthcare. Or am I missing something? Again, still shitty, and it doesn't change my opinion of her either way, but am I crazy to think that's not exactly the same as trans erasure?
Oh, I see the misunderstanding. Affirming a trans person's preferred gender is healthcare. It's a thing society does which improves their health. You know, like wheelchair ramps and flouride in water. Taking away legal recognition is taking away healthcare.
She's also praised and encouraged the Cass Review, which claimed medical treatment for trans teens isn't safe or effective, and is being used to excuse the new ban on puberty blockers.
Lemmy unreasonably hates her because she's a successful woman that won't nicely shut up and know her place. Misogyny runs deep here. Nobody will provide you with justification for the hyperbole in the OP because it doesn't exist.
People are quite clear in their criticism of her based on the things she says she does. You're trying to shift the conversation to something unrelated.
If criticisms of Rowling's Transphobia are invalid they should be easy to dispute instead of trying to build an ad hominim Strawman.
They're not clear at all. They're histrionics. People don't bother reading what she wrote. They read someone's shit take worst possible interpretation of what she wrote
Then once again: that should be very easy to discredit. The fact that you have invented a strawman instead of addressing the criticisms actually being presented speaks volumes.
What criticisms do you have that aren't histrionics?
I'm looking forward to any reply you get because I honestly can't understand the online hatred of her, apart from people making themselves feel good by believing they're fighting the good fight or whatever.
Jkr is hated for the following;
Views on Sex and Gender: Rowling argues that "sex is real" and determines the lived reality of women, arguing that disregarding biological sex harms women’s rights.
"People who menstruate" Comment: In 2020, she criticized the phrase "people who menstruate," which many deemed anti-trans, leading to criticism from LGBTQ groups.
Single-Sex Spaces: She has expressed concerns about transgender women accessing women-only spaces, such as bathrooms and changing rooms, citing her own experiences with sexual assault.
Legislative Opposition: Rowling has actively opposed reforms to gender recognition laws in Scotland, notes this BBC article.
Apparently because she dared to state her opinion, and even worse to support her own opinion that makes her evil incarnate.
Because views you don't believe in are innately evil I guess, I don't know because I've never heard a good reason why she shouldn't be able to hold these views if she wants, or to spend her money how she wants.
Btw, she has donated over $250 million to various causes, primarily focusing on children's welfare, Multiple Sclerosis research, and women's rights.
Truly evil....
"sure, she has said all these bigoted things, I don't see the problem with it."
Then I can't help you.
She has been outspoken against anti-hate speech laws that would protect trans people.
Can you please explain how a reasonable person interprets the phrase "people who menstruate" as an attack on women?
Which laws and can you give me a source for what she said?
I'm not sure why she feels that that phrase is an attack on women, you'd have to ask her.
Although her point from looking online in that instance was that the word women should be used, because you know, only women menstruate.
Again, I asked what has she said about trans people? To the points you've brought up it seems that she is advocating for women, not against trans people.
I'm happy to be shown that she hates trans people but as of yet I haven't received anything she actually said about trans people that was negative...
Of course. "Yes it talks like a duck, but we can't be sure if that's actually a quack or just a noise that happens to sound exactly like a duck."
What do you think being upset about the phrase "people who menstruate" says about trans people? In what world does using the phrase "people who menstruate" instead of "women" harm women? It's a more precise term, because not all women actually menstruate. Prepubescent girls and post-menopausal women do not menstruate. Are they not women?
"That whistle is broken. Yes, everytime you blow it all the animals near by seem to react, but neither of us actually heard anything so clearly it's not a whistle."
So no actual quotes or sources of trans hate from her then?
Just a point that has nothing to do with trans people.
If you cover your ears and close your eyes I guess you can convince yourself her complaints about the term "people who menstruate" has nothing to do with Trans People, but in reality that argument is disingenuous as fuck.
The connection in this instance seems clear, but it seems from her point of view that she's arguing for the rights of cis women, does one person's rights trump anothers?
Young women and old women aren't cis women?
She's coming from a place of "trans bad" then finding an excuse for it (protecting women) while completely missing the point that her argument harms cis women because she is only focusing on "trans bad" and not actually focusing on protecting women at all.
A few people have mentioned the young and old women point, I don't quite understand that tbh. They will and have menstruated and that clearly isn't the point she's making.
So tbh it just seems like a straw man to discredit her position. She's clearly referencing the point that biological men don't menstruate and never will and so shouldn't be included in that group
Are you purposely being obtuse? If someone is using the phrase "people who menstruate" that is because they are talking about something directly relevant to menstruation. A study about menstruation and its effects on the body is in fact irrelevant to the very young and the very old. "Should we have supplies on hand for people who menstruate" means the very young and very old are not relevant to the discussion.
Which is why "people who menstruate" was used. The strawman is treating this like an attack on women instead of a more exact term for the specific people relevant.
J.K. Rowling views it as an attack on women, because it denies women's hard-won sex-based rights. These rights include women's spaces that exclude men, such as rape/crisis shelters, changing rooms, sports. She uses a sex-based definition of "woman" unlike the new gender-based definition. You don't agree with her and that's fine, but that's why she views it as protecting women's rights.
A sex-based definition clarifies the "people who menstruate" conversation, because only women can menstruate. Some women don't, but they're still women, because their sex is not defined by whether or not they menstruate.
It does not do that in any way what so ever. It is a dog whistle, the mask she hides behind to spew her bigotry, and you have either fallen for it or are using the same tactics.
No, it doesn't, because of the reasons I said above:
As I said before: The obsession with not allowing the term "People who menstruate" actively harms cis gendered women who do not menstruate, because it says "You are not a real woman." Once again, a bigot has "defended" 'traditional' gender roles so hard they have looped around to harming cis gendered people in their attacks on trans people.
You don't have to agree with her worldview, but it's overall coherent. There are situations in which sex and gender rights are in tension with each other. She thinks that when they conflict, sex-based rights win out. You think that gender-based rights win out.
She cares that women have sex-specific places, like women's rape shelters. She views "women" as a sex-based definition, and these spaces as a sex-based right. She does not think that anyone who is biologically male, regardless of their gender, is a woman. If someone who is biologically male wants access to one of those spaces, she objects not because of their gender, but because of their sex.
This is not a defense of her views, just an explanation of why she sees it as protecting women. For trans women that need help, she likely thinks "that sucks but not a problem for women to solve".
Well, no. Some women don't menstruate, but a sex-based definition doesn't exclude them from being "real women". They're just women who don't menstruate.
You are moving the argument. I am talking specifically of her complaints about the term "people who menstruate". That is not a "situation in which sex and gender rights are in tension with each other", is has nothing to do with women having sex-specific places, nor someone who is biologically male wanting access to one of those spaces. It has nothing to do with protecting women.
This is all as relevant as saying "She's not transphobic, she is against stealing." That's all well and good, but completely irrelevant to this specific instance of transphobic bigotry that I am talking about.
Correct
Agreed
Therefore, if you were using the phrase "people who menstruate" the "correct" term for that would in fact not be "women" because there are women who do not menstruate.
I will agree with you on one point however:
Correct, it is the worldview of a bigot.
There's several topics here. Explaining her views is responding to this
She wants to protect women. She thinks that trans women aren't women. It doesn't start out with "trans bad". It starts out with "protecting women" + "woman is defined by sex". That's all there is to it. If you don't like it, convince her that the gender-based definition is better.
The whole "people who menstruate" thing is peak idpol and designed to waste our time arguing about it instead of developing class consciousness. You're part of the problem. If we spent half the time wasted on this guillotining the ruling class we'd live in a better world already where people who menstruate are materially better off in every way.
"She's not a bigot, just a power hungry oligarch?"
Okay, so we can both agree she's a piece of shit and people shouldn't be helping her acquire more wealth?
Stop focusing on her. Stop participating in the online hate mob that exists to distract from class issues. Do something useful with your life.
Of course. You've argued about this and defended Rowling for days, but when I refuse to let you shift the argument and insist you defend your arguments it's suddenly unimportant and a waste of time.
Imane Khelif is biologically male and has said so directly:
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/sports/article/2026/02/05/boxer-imane-khelif-reveals-she-took-hormone-treatment-before-paris-olympics_6750171_9.html
People really want to hate on J.K. Rowling for that, but she was 100% correct.
Not what that article says at all.
Yes, it is
Okay, you've convinced me that the article says something that it doesn't say at all. Good job.
It remains true that Khelif is self-admittedly biologically male, despite your wish that reality weren't so
From your article
Did you go into a fugue state as you read this part, or just felt like lying to everyone?
Some male babies are born with ambiguous genitalia, and get incorrectly assigned female at birth. They are raised "as a girl" in the gender sense, while still being biologically male. They are not trans. No amount of being raised "as a girl" changes their sex. Khelif is one of these people. Khelif is male.
You don't even understand the basics of what you're trying to argue about. Please, for everyone's sake, educate yourself before polluting the Fediverse.
Congratulations! You're learning that gender is actually a spectrum!
What you quoted:
What you said:
But the article did not say anything about her being born with ambiguous genitalia. Did you hallucinate while reading the article or just felt like lying to everyone?
So let me educate you: there are people born with the SRY gene but only female physical characteristics. There are people born without the SRY gene that have a penis. So what defines a male? Is it being born with a penis, is it having the SRY gene, or is it something more complicated than that?
You've confused gender and sex. Please educate yourself. I'll help!
What makes someone male or female is the type of gametes their body is organized around producing.
Let's start with that. Can you acknowledge your previous ignorance now that you have become slightly more educated?
Okay, please educate me:
Person A has the SRY gene but their body does not have any male characteristics, and never did. They were born with a vagina and never had a penis. Are they male or female?
Person B does not have the SRY gene but was born with a penis. Are they male or female?
Person C was born with both a penis and a vagina, are they male and female?
Glad to help!
You're suffering from some common misconceptions, namely that genitalia is how sex is defined. It's not! Sex is defined entirely by gametes, because no other definition makes sense across the animal kingdom. The response to all of your questions is, "What gametes do they produce or are organized around producing?".
Chromosomes are how sex is determined in humans, but not how sex is defined. Sex is not defined by sex characteristics. Other species have different sex determination systems, such as the ambient temperature determining the sex of a fetus. Trying to define sex by chromosomes for those species just wouldn't make sense!
To answer your questions for persons A & B, please consult these handy charts:
https://theparadoxinstitute.org/articles/sex-development-charts
You will notice that each viable DSD has male or female listed, because their sex is not ambiguous. Person A would likely have CAIS and therefore be male
Person B would likely be have XX male syndrome and also be male
Person C doesn't exist, as you're imagining; you're suffering from another common misconception. Humans aren't born with fully functional reproductive organs of both sexes. Some species do have that! They have body plans where that is a normal part of development, and you will simultaneously find healthy males, females, and hermaphrodites co-existing (or males+hermaphrodites, or other combinations). Keep in mind that those species still have two sexes, they just have individuals that are male, female, or both sexes (sequentially or simultaneously)
Humans are what's known as gonochoric, because we don't have that. You can find humans born with Ovotesticular syndrome, but that still isn't "produces mature gametes of both types". It's "maybe produces gametes of one type, and has a bit of non-functional tissue of the other gamete type, known as streak tissue". Their bodies are still organized around producing one gamete type or the other.
There are two sexes, because there are exactly two types of gametes in anisogamous species. No more, no less. Note that you'll often see mating types confused with sex, but those are not sexes. Those are isogamous species and interesting, but irrelevant to this conversation.
I hope that helped!
So having never had a genetic test it is impossible for me to know my sex? In fact, for the vast majority of people in the world we don't know their sex at all!
In that case it seems excessively foolish to have laws and policies based around sex, because 99% of the population have not had the appropriate tests to determine their sex.
I take it you accept the biological reality. It's actually the case that most people know their sex. Anyone that has had a child knows what their sex is.
It's true that in a lot of cases, sex isn't particularly important. That's OK! But sometimes it matters, like in elite sports. Athletes have to go through many invasive testing procedures to compete, and including a simple, noninvasive sex test is not a burden.
Clearly not, as you are claiming Khelif's mother did not know the sex of her own child. So how could anybody know without a gentic test?
Other way around. Khelif's mother knows what her own sex is. She gave birth to Khelif. Only one sex is capable of that in humans
So until someone has a child it is impossible to know their sex without genetic testing? Still seems absurd to have any rules or polices regarding sex. How can we separate children by sex if we don't know their sex?
You're really trying here, but still no. There are many easy ways to determine sex. Having a child is one of them. Your argument that most people don't know their sex is wrong.
Sex is empirically verifiable. Gender is not. Laws and rules based on sex can be enforced without bias. If you think laws shouldn't be based on empirical facts, advocate for change.
This is all a digression from the fact that Khelif is self-admittedly male. If you think Khelif should be able to compete in women's leagues regardless then convince the sport authorities to change the rules away from sex.
Not what Khelif has said in the slightest. You're trying to distract from your argument defining her as such.
Khelif made a statement.
You responded to that with the erroneous statement "that makes Khelif male".
I've been responding directly to your statemen, and you're saying that's a digression despite it being your entire argument, because you can't actually defend it. You're stating it as a fact, and when questioned claim that it doesn't matter while continuing to assert it as fact.
So far we have determined that according to you the only way for someone to know what sex they are is if they have a child or get genetically tested. What bathroom should I use? Don't know because I haven't had a child. My niece wants to join an after school sports team, guess we better have them genetically tested first so we know what team they are allowed to be on, because unless she gets pregnant there is no other way to tell.
You're spewing lies. Please stop. Khelif admitted to being male. That's indisputable. If you're confused, please reread the article and above diagrams. It's made to educate ignorant people. You can become educated.
Giving birth is one way of knowing. Please stop acting mentally disabled.
Pot, meet kettle.
Again, never actually happened. Only under your definition of male that no one else uses because it is completely useless as a classification.
You've said there are many ways to know, but somehow can only keep giving the same one. As I've said repeatedly: someone who has not given birth cannot know. I guess we should limit women's sports to people who have been impregnated. That is the only logical conclusion I can come to from your arguments. Why else would you keep bringing up giving birth as "one way" (the only way) to know?
And some abelism for good measure. I'm expect to believe you are rational, level headed, and empathetic when this is how you respond to someone who disagrees with you?