#this is about matt walsh and jk rowling

[moonmoonthecrabking]

love the internet bc you can see people with the worst takes. hate the internet bc it is almost impossible to convince them otherwise.

[thetimelordbatgirl]

Imma send this to anyone who acts like JK Rowling is just being a bigot for women's rights- she's making it very clear here she's not pro women's rights if you dare disagree with her. If you dare do so and dare to support trans rights, she'll either in a condescending tone tell you your simply naïve and need to experience certain things to see why she and terfs are bigots, or she'll act like your simply craving attention from men. The line, "I forgive-", no one is begging you for forgiveness, JK, get that fantasy out of your head already alongside the fantasy off everyone being wrong if they dare point out how bigoted you are and that trans rights are human rights.

[vexingwoman]

Referring to JK Rowling, of course. Interesting how these unhinged cultists never conjure up similar, overly detailed rape and torture scenarios about conservative men whose opposition to trans ideology stems from homophobic and misogynistic views (like Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro, or Jordan Peterson).

Interesting how these rape and torture scenarios are reserved exclusively for the one woman whose opposition to trans ideology stems from radical feminist and gender abolitionist views.

[noahsarkisfulloffrogs]

A part 2 to a previous post I made so I can raise awareness

By the way, here's a comprehensive list of individuals who've done stuff that concerns me, so without further ado

Ben Shapiro-

Key Jean-Kay/Posey Parker- a TERF or transphobe whose more known in the UK (where I'm from) who posted this as a response to Brianna Ghey's death

Libs Of Tiktok-

Matt Walsh-

Alice Cooper-

Graham Linean-

JK ROWLING- I'm not even going to dignify her with any image because she's notorious for doing that shit.

Rosin Murphy-

Elon musk-

Ricky Gervais-

Blair White : It's full of subtleties, but if someone uses the word 'convincing' to say that someone's exploring their identity, then you're inciting hatred because you're creating a narrative that they're just confused and don't really understand themselves.

This is a reupload BUT kalvin Garrah has done some serious damage too

Raven-This might not seem harmful now, but this pronoun moral panic can lead to you being brought down a transphobic pipeline.

Arielle Scarcella

There's probably MANY MANY more, but please, THINK BEFORE YOU POST. These people spread dangerous rhetoric because it's easy to ostracise a social group, so PLEASE PLEASE think about what you say because you will tar your hands with the blood of hundreds of people, and that's something you can never wash off. (I'd encourage anyone to comment any other creators who do similar things.)

I want to start a petition so here goes nothing, but here's a change.org petition I made so hopefully countries or groups will be put into more pressure to DEAL WITH these individuals beyond demonetising them

Change.org- https://chng.it/LQx5JS6D9s

(I'M GOING TO UPDATE THIS WITH MORE LINKS SO PLEASE KEEP CHECKING THIS POST <3)

Also posts made by others on this include: https://www.change.org/p/youtube-stop-targeting-trans-youtubers?source_location=search

[chongoblog]

"Akshually. Being a feminist is WAY worse than being a known pedophile who draws underage girls in sexual situations and is also friends with two actually convicted pedophiles who were caught with literal child porn" somebody needs to check your hard drive immediately. Can you revolting pedophiles just kill yourselves already.

“JK Rowling totally hasn’t been heading a hate campaign against trans people, she cares about women’s rights, which is why she gets herself comfortable with Matt Walsh, known feminist. Also you think that Oda is faultless, because I’m not smart enough to comprehend things I read, but then again that’s kinda the price of entry for hating trans people this much.”

I’m really not in the mood for your dumbfuck attitude, so get the fuck out of my inbox, terf.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Daniel Villarreal at LGBTQ Nation:

Transphobic billionaire Elon Musk told transphobic possible-billionaire J.K. Rowling to try writing something “interesting and positive” this weekend after she shared a 709-word essay explaining her transphobic views on Musk’s social media platform, X. Musk has also repeatedly used X to promote transphobic views to his 182.3 million followers. Musk recently saw Rowling’s April 6 post in which she shared her trans-exclusive definition of a woman and said, yet again, that trans women are a violent threat to cis women and that gender-affirming care harms children — neither of which is true. Musk replied in a now-deleted post, “While I heartily agree with your points regarding sex/gender, may I suggest also posting interesting and positive content on other matters?”

In a May 5 post referencing Musk’s reaction, Rowling wrote, “Hahaha, just realised that I missed being advised to share more positive content yesterday.” She then linked to an article about her writing career. Musk commented on her post, writing, “I need to be reminded of this myself from time to time.” Around the same time, Musk highlighted a post asking if robots in the future will be able to fart, shared a video from transphobic Daily Wire broadcaster Matt Walsh, and pushed the baseless claim that election fraud in the U.S. is rampant — it’s not. Later that same day, Musk commented on a post about Rowling, writing, “Rowling rocks.”

Anti-trans extremist Elon Musk tells fellow anti-trans bigot J.K. Rowling to tone down her vigilantly anti-trans vitriol.

See Also:

PinkNews: Elon Musk just asked JK Rowling to lighten up about trans folks – yes, really

The Advocate: Transphobe Elon Musk calls out J.K. Rowling for posting transphobic content

[bitterkarella]

Midnight Pals: New Potter

[mysterious circle of robed figures] JK Rowling: hello children Rowling: great newssss Rowling: they’re making a new harry potter ssseriessss on HBO Rowling: and thissss time Rowling: thisss time we’ll do it right

Rowling: I’ve been VERY dissssappointed Rowling: to find that the kids from the original moviessss turned out to ssssupport transss rightsss Rowling: I don’t know how they get away with sssssaying that Rowling: I made them! I own them! Rowling: they should be compelled to obey ME! Rowling: I mussst have accidentally given them clothesss at sssome point

Rowling: but I plan to be heavily involved in thisss new potter ssseriessss Rowling: and, believe me, I will be heavily sssscrutinizing thessse new actorssss Rowling: essspecially when they’re sshowering

Rowling: I’m making a new potter sssseriessss Rowling: and there’s gonna be ssome Rowling: CHANGESSS Rowling: around here Rowling: firssst of all, harry potter is a nazi now Rowling: I’ve decided that fascism is good now

Rowling: the deatheaters are all evil queers and drag queens now Rowling: and I want hookier noses on those goblins!! Rowling: maybe put ssssome payot on them Rowling: i don't want there to be any misssunderssstandingsss about what i'm ssssaying

Rowling: I need a big doofy oaf Rowling: just a big hairy bumbling loser who fucks up all his relationships Rowling: glinner Rowling: you’re gonna be our new hagrid Rowling: now we need some stupid old hippie Rowling: just a real annoying loudmouth hippie that everyone can shit on Rowling: nina, I think you would be a great trelawny Nina Paley: it’s the part I was born to play!

Rowling: and for cho chang Rowling: I choose Ishida Tatsuya Tatsuya: I’m Japanese Rowling: Rowling: look it’s not my fault you all look alike Tatsuya: also I’m a guy Rowling: LOOK I already said it’s not my fault you all look alike

Rowling: jesse, my loyal wormtail Jesse Singal: yes mommy Rowling: I have saved the best part for you Singal: mommy mommy mommy! Rowling: for you shall me Singal: [vibrating] MOMMY MOMMY MOMMY MOMMY!!!

Rowling: you shall be Singal: MOMMY MOMMY MOMMY Rowling: Anthony Goldstein Singal: Singal: oh I thought I was gonna get to be harry potter Rowling: you? Harry potter? Ha! Rowling: don’t make me laugh! Rowling: I’m saving that for matt walsh

[sapphsorrows]

terfs like you aren't feminists, you're misogynistic grifters hiding behind the boogeyman you've made out of the trans community so you can undermine feminism and undo all of that work with trans people as an excuse - just look at who (and what) JK Rowling's openly talking about and siding with. Or are the Taliban and Matt Walsh paragons of feminism? Hope you can get out of the cult <3

known taliban supporter jk rowling

[hadesoftheladies]

alright, some misogynist and ableist goons on this site keep bothering me about my jkr post because they cannot fathom the fact that calling out bias doesn't necessarily equal endorsing. so i'm going to be super nice about it and put all the facts here for the fact-enjoyers.

let's go over the claims made against jkr by testerical twitterheads, because everything to do with trans politics regarding jkr is just extremist white liberals reaching.

Claim: JK Rowling is friends with Matt Walsh. False!

Claim: JK Rowling is friends with Kellie-Jay Keen. Ambiguous! (She has agreed with Kellie-Jay Keen on several issues and advocated for her based on false allegations about nazism concerning Kellie-Jay Keen. Men-rights activists made shit up about her endorsing nazi salutes at her women's campaign. also, JK Rowling has agreed with many people whose politics she does not wholly endorse, like matt walsh. agreeing with someone on an opinion or fact, does not mean you agree with their politics.)

Claim: JK Rowling denies the Holocaust. False! (For proof, see this thread. JK Rowling does not DENY that the Holocaust happened, but that trans people were specifically targeted by the Nazis. Some argue that this makes her a Holocaust denier based on some German article, but I find the term muddies the water. It can be an offense, a grievous one, to deny the Nazis did something when they did, but calling JKR a Holocaust denier makes people think she doesn't believe the Holocaust happened when she absolutely does.

Additionally, the topic as to whether trans people were explicitly targeted by Nazis has had a fair share of scholarly debate. They may have faced some measure of harassment, but being specifically targeted is also a reach considering how little historical evidence we have of transvestites being outrightly persecuted, at least, to anywhere near the same degree homosexual, black or Jewish people were. Cross-dressing certificates were legal in Nazi Germany, for example, and I have found no record of a transvestite suffering things like forced sterilization. This article briefly mentions a German author who thought that the Nazis would finally take care of "the transvestite problem" because now they could be sent to concentration camps and castrated there, but there is still no record of any transvestite having undergone such a thing. Furthermore, of the examples of transvestites that were taken to concentration camps, both of them were homosexual, so it would be more accurate to say they were targeted for being homosexual, especially when you look at why they were arrested. On the other hand, some transvestites ended up in concentration camps, but it was likely due to the fact that they were Jewish rather than trans.

It is also very significant that in the German Republic, transvestites had permits while homosexuals did not!

JKR might be denying that they burned trans books. Unfortunately for her, she is wrong. Transvestite research WAS targeted by the Nazis. Again, not much is known about transvestites during this time and I have found no solid numbers. It most definitely didn't happen on the same scale as what gay, lesbian, Jewish or Roma people were suffering through--and why would it, transvestites weren't a large population, also i have found no record of transvestites being forced to wear pink triangles, like homosexual men were--, though gay men and transvestites seemed to get more leniency if they were "Aryan." )

Claim: JK Rowling directly funds government suppression. (Which government? Source? I'll make an assumption and guess that you're referring to her 1 million pound donation to the Better Together anti-Scottish independence campaign? Yes, she has. But she respects the opinions of those who disagree with her on the subject. She's also donated to the Labour Party, which is more centre-left politically.)

Claim: JK Rowling has financially supported groups that repress Scotland's right to independence. True! (She also voted "No!" on Scottish independence).

Claim: JK Rowling is gunning to be a Neo-Nazi. False! (She has not expressed any explicit Nazi views! Please tap the source to see what Nazi views actually are! JK Rowling has been explicitly leftist in her politics and anti-racist.)

Claim: JK Rowling is a fascist. False! (She does not identify as fascist and does not have any explicit fascist views. Unlike the people burning and trying to ban her books, which contain very little of her politics.)

i don't worship JKR, i don't even agree with a good chunk of her politics. especially when it comes to her sympathy for israel. she's a millionaire white woman, and i am a born and raised african middle-class person. we won't have many politics in common. but unlike you lot, i don't need to be misogynistic or ableist in order to disagree with a woman. resorting to misogyny, ableism, racism or homophobia just because you hate someone is still misogyny, ableism, racism and homophobia. i wouldn't call a transperson the "t-word" even though i don't profess their gender faith. because i recognize that using the "t-word" on a trans-identified person that's done or said disgusting things like, idk, andrea long chu or hunter schaffer (are these your leaders? seriously?), saying that word will still hurt trans-identified people who didn't do or say those horrible things unnecessarily.

see what i did there? i read things up for myself, added sources from people i disagreed with politically, discussed the valid history of people who i disagree with without resorting to dehumanizing language, and called out the celebrity you lot think are "my hero" without being a hypocrite!

class dismissed.

now fuck off you rancid misogynists and go back to snivelling about how righteous you are to your echo chamber.

also, radblr girlies feel free to reblog or link this for all the anti-jkr posts that make any of these claims or keep trying to bait you with this braindead discourse to save yourselves the effort. love you and muah! :)

[hestiasroom]

At first I wasn’t particularly inclined to watch Matt Walsh’s documentary What is a Woman? I know the answer to that one already. Everybody does.

A woman is someone who isn’t allowed a final say on what a woman is. Pretending not to know this — that defining “woman” is incredibly complex and bewildering — is an age-old tactic deployed by non-women, usually in order to excuse treating us badly. 

Are women fully human? Do they have souls? What do women want? Far greater men than the host of The Matt Walsh Show — Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Sigmund Freud — have tried and failed to answer these questions (they could always have asked an actual woman, but first they’d have had to establish whether women can think, and then they’d have been back to square one).

As Matt himself says at the start of his film, “I like to make sense of things. Making sense of females is a whole other matter”, noting that “even astrophysicist Stephen Hawking” was “completely dumbfounded by women”.

Even astrophysicist Stephen Hawking! Honestly, ladies, if the author of A Brief History of Time hasn’t a clue what the hell we are, what hope do any of us have? 

The thankless nature of the task may be why the twenty-first century version of The Woman Question has now been allocated to those somewhat lower down the male intellect hierarchy: Edinburgh fringe comedians, disgraced MPs, right-wing shock jocks, Owen Jones and Billy Bragg. 

The proposal that a woman is anyone who defines themselves as a woman — and that no woman may say anyone isn’t a woman — has led to a particularly unimpressive stage of the debate, one which can only be described as the Summa Theologica meets incels r us. 

On the bright side, it’s clear the men are bloody loving it. If you’re left-wing, it’s your chance to put those TERFs in their place after years of having to “do feminism” as part of the right-side-of-history package deal. If you’re right-wing, it’s your opportunity to own all those feminists who suggested female bodies weren’t inferior and that pink, fluffy ladybrains were a myth. As Walsh declares of his film, “the movie makes utter fools of educated elite liberals”. I’m guessing that’s the point. 

I confess to having known very little about Matt Walsh up till now. “I’m a husband, I’m a father of four, I host a talk show, I give speeches, I write books,” he tells us by way of introduction. Hey, that sounds nice! Alas, a quick perusal of his twitter account shows that he’s the kind of renaissance man who tweets things like “feminism is an ugly and bitter ideology” and “rapists love abortion. It helps them cover up their crime”.

He’s also the kind of man who, should feminists show themselves to insufficiently appreciative of his recent woman-defining efforts, tells us we would “rather be a victim than win the fight” and that we “just want to sit on the sidelines and whine”. He’s been, like, getting death threats due to his challenge to contemporary gender mores! Would you risk that, eh, feminists? What’s anyone ever done to you, JK Rowling, you massive coward? 

I first wrote about the problematic nature of a gender identity-based definition of women over eight years ago. Other women, such as Julie Bindel, were sounding the alarm far earlier, and with little support. I know we’re supposed to be eternally grateful to Matt for stepping into the breach. What a gent! As the Onion once put it, Man Finally Put In Charge of Struggling Feminist Movement (admittedly it’s a man who thinks feminism is an ugly and bitter ideology but hey, we can’t have everything). 

In any case, I gave in and watched Matt’s film, just on the off-chance I’d missed something (more fool me; I read Gender Trouble on that basis, and look where that’s got me). There was little in What is a woman? that I didn’t already know from the work of feminists themselves, but that’s no reason to discount it. What’s wrong with alerting the normies to the excesses of trans activism too? 

Walsh never acknowledges the role his own rigid beliefs play

Perhaps the most difficult thing about conveying the absurdities of extreme trans activism to anyone who hasn’t yet encountered it, is that you either sound as though you’re making it up (usually in order to “stoke moral panic”) or the person to whom you’re talking concludes you must have missed some essential point (it would indeed be horrific if teenage girls were having their breasts removed due to social contagion and “progressive” institutions were cheering it on, therefore it can’t be happening. There must be something else afoot).

One of the great things about Walsh’s film is that he shows, first, that harmful things are indeed taking place, and second, that there is no hidden meaning behind them. The therapists, surgeons, academics and politicians to whom he speaks don’t suddenly pull back the curtain and reveal, yes, this is the reason why it isn’t total bollocks to claim that no one really knows what sex anyone is. That moment never comes (and believe me, I’d have loved it if it had. Being a Known TERF is a pain in the arse).

Instead they say things like “a chicken has an assigned gender” and that the word truth is “condescending and rude”. Ha! Aren’t liberals ridiculous? At one point Matt interviews someone who identifies as a wolf (or some other animal. I got bored and went to the kitchen for a biscuit at that point). What’s striking is that you sense his interviewees know on some level that they’re bullshitting. That’s why a number of them end the interview early, citing Walsh’s alleged bad faith as the reason why. 

There are some genuinely moving sections to the film, such as the interviews with female athletes cheated out of prizes by the inclusion of males in the girls’ categories. The contribution from Scott Newgent, a trans man deeply concerned about the impact of medical transition on young females, was incredibly engaging. I could have watched a whole film on Newgent alone, as someone clearly driven by both personal trauma and compassion for others. 

So why, overall, did the film leave a bad taste? Am I just an “ugly and bitter” feminist, peeved that a man has come along and claimed a number of feminist observations as his own? Am I a purist, unwilling to accept any support from anyone whose views don’t align precisely with mine? 

I don’t think so. The problem for me is that Walsh never acknowledges the role his own rigid beliefs play in creating and perpetuating the current situation. 

He finds countless people convinced that the only way to avoid imposing harmful social norms on individuals on the basis of their sexed bodies, is to pretend we can’t define said bodies or impute any social meaning to them at all. Yet he does nothing to suggest one shouldn’t impose said norms, or that his own pink/blue fantasies of girlhood and boyhood might be leading those who don’t conform to feel they are somehow “wrong”. 

“Give my son a BB gun and that’s just about all the emotional support he needs,” he muses over a children’s party scene, all boys in blue jeans, all girls pink princesses. “My daughter on the other hand … I’ve heard people say that there are no differences between male and female. Those people are idiots.”

Hmm. I have three children, all biologically male, all of whom have played with dolls houses and worn dresses. Two of them have Frozen-style long blonde hair and I’ve never bought any of them a toy gun (nor have any of them asked for one). 

Women are caught between two forms of misogyny

According to Walsh’s own gender ideology, I’m on the slippery slope towards the erasure of any stable definition of “male” and “female” at all. This is the mirror image of the absurdities of trans activism. Both Walsh and the people he interviews conflate sex difference denialism with the rejection of gender stereotypes. He thinks we should suffer the stereotypes; they think we should suffer the surgery. Feminists believe we shouldn’t suffer either. 

There’s a particularly grim scene where Walsh attends a Women’s March, and delights in harassing female protestors who don’t want to give a precise definition of the word “woman”. Much as this reticence frustrates me, too, I know where it comes from. The polarised politics of the day has told these women they must choose between denying their sex and accepting an anti-choice, conservative vision of what it means to be an adult human female. It’s a vision Matt Walsh shares.

These women are caught between two forms of misogyny but to Walsh, it’s all “own the libs” fun and games. This man is not on our side, nor will he win over the women he lazily misrepresents as not knowing what’s good for them. 

At the end of the film, Matt returns home from his gender odyssey to his waiting Penelope. She is, of course, in the kitchen, and happens to be struggling with a pickle jar. 

“What is a woman?” he asks her.

“An adult human female — who needs help opening this!” she responds. Got it, ladies? He’ll defend our right to exist as a sex class, as long as we can all agree it’s the weaker one. 

In the end, I’m just so fed up with the machismo. Last year I spoke to one of the founders of Woman’s Place UK, who told me sex-based rights will ultimately be defended best by those in it for “the victory, not the glory”. The people, mainly women, often lesbians and women of colour, who do the dull, behind the scenes work of compiling data and challenging unfair practices one by one. The people who aren’t seeking to reimpose other, equally oppressive beliefs about sex and gender. 

It may be that What is a Woman? helps, by showing some still on the fence that the problem is real. Others, it may push in the other direction. Either way, women themselves won’t be thanked for their own hard work and significant risks. 

After all, that’s just what being a woman is.

[kiefbowl]

JK Rowling simps for Matt Walsh all the time though. And don't pull that "well not ALL radfems" shit. Isn't having the exact same opinions with no disagreement whatsoever the entire point of a political movement?

Okay again, I'm not the person to talk to. I'm not a radfem, I don't care about Matt Walsh, I don't think JKR speaks for me. And also, no I completely disagree with you statement that a political movement is supposed to be the exact same opinions with no disagreement. that's such a silly juvenile thing to say I think you must be a troll or w/e. in any case, take it up with people who actually care about Matt Walsh. What am I supposed to do, apologize for other people?

[lizardbytheriver]

TERFs and Gender Critical People are on the same side as Fascists, as Ben Shapiro, as Matt Walsh, as Marjorie Taylor Greene, as Donald Trump, as Ron DeSantis, as Jesse Watters, as Michael Knowles, as Steven Crowder, as Lauren Boebert, as Tucker Carlson, as a million reactionaries. TERFs and Gender Critical People share the same opinions on Trans People as these horrendous far-right bigots. TERFs and Gender Critical People often end up praising these Far-Right Bigots (remember JK Rowling talking about how good Matt Walsh's film was). TERFs and Gender Critical People are Rightwing. They may try to dress it up as being Communist, as being Anarchist, etc. But they are just rightwing reactionaries. They have the same godforsaken takes as some of the most evil men in this world. So. If you are a Communist, Marxist, Anarchist, Socialist, Social Democrat, Liberal, Leftist, or anyone on the Left. You cannot be a TERF or a Gender Critical. Because their opinions and hate campaign is almost identical to the far-right reactionaries. TERFs and Gender Critical People are not welcomed in Leftwing Spaces.

[harrypotterfuryroad]

How would you show someone who's anti JKR cause they clearly don't know what she'd said that she isn't anti-trans at all and show them what she'd actually said(plus her essay)?

Few people from my online friend group are firmly in 'JKR is an evil transphobe that wants trans people dead' camp, I'm not too sure if others are also against her cause they just like me never actually say anything when the those few are trashing her, and tbh I'm a bit of a coward to check in with others.

If I'd just met them all I'd definietly act like I have no idea what she'd said and innocently ask them, but since I've known them for over a decade and whenever they trash talk her I keep quiet I don't know how to bring it up now, y'know? That make sense?

I really want to make them see the truth cause it's getting harder and harder to ignore them, and it doesn't help that few of them are gendies, and one of them calls themself bi-ace so they firmly believe in trans ideology, so yeah I really don't know what to do.

Any advice?

so there's a few things you can do, here are the ones i've had success with:

unattributed quotes - you just put out something she said without referencing her and see if it's still seen as objectionable. i tweeted the "most misogynistic period i've experienced" quote and gotten people who i know have been vocal and vicious about jk to retweet it. you don't need to do a big gotcha reveal afterward but you can at least keep that in your pocket

play a little dumb - something like "wow she really said that? i better see for myself because it's crazy she would just put that out there," basically asking for sources without coming off like a debate me bro. i know you've said it feels kinda too late to try this, but i'm sure no one would hold it against you if you say you want to understand it better. you can say you're having trouble finding the exact quote they're referencing and make them go through the motions of finding it themselves. they'll either fail to find a primary source or they'll warp something she actually said, but at least you've gotten them past shaun videos and pinknews as their only sources (and if they refuse to go for primary sources then at least you've made them admit that)

point out that lying about their opponents only makes them look weaker - usually this one comes up in regards to like "jk rowling supports vladimir putin and matt walsh!!" you can just link to the tweets where she's vocally critical of matt walsh or the fact that she's doing a lot of humanitarian relief stuff in ukraine. again you can take the approach of wanting to see for yourself. if a really common belief among their group is that easy to disprove, why are they so insistent about it? (bonus if you push on the putin thing and all they can give you is "putin namedropped her in an obvious ploy to soften his image" (which is like thirty eight telephone steps away from "she supports him"))

at a certain point you can just point blank ask them why they think she wants trans people dead, they might just double down but at least it'll be clear that it's based on nothing

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Colin Wright

Published: May 26, 2024

It is completely inexcusable that there are no representatives who acknowledge biological sex as binary and immutable at this symposium.

One month ago, I was alerted about an upcoming symposium on sex and gender organized by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), an institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), in a thread on X by trans rights activist and biologist Jey McCreight.

McCreight was responding to a series of posts by JK Rowling, who offered £1,000,000 pounds to any woman who could prove she had Klinefelter syndrome. A trans-identified male X user named Taylor came forward claiming to be “a chick with Mosaic Klinefelter syndrome,” and asked when he would be paid. Rowling responded, “The cheque will be written the moment I see proof of no Y chromosome!” To my knowledge, Taylor has not yet provided such proof.

McCreight weighed in, proudly touting her credentials: “JK Rowling is not an expert in genetics. But I am!” She then made pseudoscientific assertions about “chromosomal sex” while ironically accusing Rowling and her supporters of having a “5th grade understanding of biology.”

The following day, McCreight shared a screenshot of a message she received from the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI). The message thanked her for tagging them in her post and informed her about “a two-day symposium in July that will bring together experts from the biological and social sciences to clarify (not resolve!) the complexity of sex categorization.”

Registration for the symposium, titled “Exploring the many dimensions of sex and gender in the genomics era,” opened on May 19, and the “tentative agenda” was revealed.

However, despite the event's stated purpose of bringing “experts from the biological and social sciences to clarify and contextualize – but not resolve – the complexities around sex, gender, and genomics by considering them in their scientific, ethical, and historical contexts,” the list of presenters is ideologically homogeneous, consisting entirely of activist scientists and radical gender ideologues.

Here’s the agenda:

Who are these people? Let’s take a look:

One of the speakers is Julia Serano, a self-described activist who writes about sex on her blog. Serano believes that sex is “a collection of sexually dimorphic traits" that, with the exception of chromosomes, can be changed with hormones and surgery to literally change a person’s sex. She has described the claim that “trans women are biological males” as “a myth.”

Another presenter, Beans Velocci, stated in a recent article in Cell, that “sex is an incoherent category, one that has perhaps outlived its use.” Velocci says that belief in the reality of sex categories “fuels ongoing arguments about the purportedly biological reasons that transgender (and especially nonbinary) people are not deserving of rights or do not even exist.”

And what would a symposium about sex be without Anne Fausto-Sterling? She will also be in attendance. Fusto-Sterling is responsible for the pseudoscientific assertion that there are “5 sexes” and the originator of the widely debunked 1.7% statistic for so-called “intersex” conditions. She believes biological sex is a multi-level/variate spectrum. Or a social construct. Or both. Or neither. It’s unclear.

Patrick Grzanka, an associate professor of psychology and chair of the Women, Gender & Sexuality Interdisciplinary Program at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, will also be present. You might remember Grzankafrom Matt Walsh’s documentary, “What Is a Woman?” He was the guy who refused to say that a “trans woman” is a “male” and stated that “invoking the the word ‘truth’” was “condescending and rude.”

Then there’s Catherine Clune-Taylor, an Assistant Professor of Gender and Sexuality Studies at Princeton. Her dissertation is titled “From Intersex to DSD: A Foucauldian Analysis of the Science, Ethics and Politics of the Medical Production of Cisgendered Lives.” In a book chapter for The Routledge Handbook of Feminist Philosophy of Science titled “Is Sex Socially Constructed?”, Clune-Taylor argues that “our understanding of biological sex and its multiple material components – is shaped by socio-culturally and temporally specific meanings, and material arrangements.” She also contends that what we typically refer to as “sex differences” are “better characterized as material effects of development within a gendered environment than evidence of naturally binary sex.”

Melissa Wilson, an evolutionary and computational biologist at Arizona State, does not necessarily fit the typical activist profile. However, based on her posts on X, she appears to believe that sex is a non-binary “spectrum.”

Sam Sharpe, a PhD candidate at Kansas State University, self-describes as “a trans and intersex person” who has “been involved in trans and intersex activism since 2016.” Sharpe calls for a “more inclusive understanding of sex diversity” and believes Lia Thomas is being discriminated against for “failing to conform to expectations of cisnormative white femininity.” Sharpe says that “biological sex is complex, variable, not fully understood, and definitely not a binary,” and blames the binary view of sex on “capitalism.”

Cassius Adair, who is moderating a session, has a PhD in English from the University of Michigan. According to his website, he provides “queer and trans storytelling consulting for popular podcasts and public radio programs” and serves as a “transgender sensitivity reader.”

Paisley Currah, a professor of political science and women’s and gender studies at Brooklyn College, is also an author and trans rights activist. He published a book in 2022 titled Sex Is as Sex Does, which argues against sex classification laws.

Ross Brooks, another presenter, is a historian focusing on the “queer history of science.” He served as a contributing editor for a queer-themed edition of Viewpoint: The Magazine of the British Society for the History of Science, with the goal of “Queering the Museum.”

Christopher Donohue is a historian of science at the National Human Genome Research Institute. His research “uses the history and present manifestations of eugenics, scientific racism, ableism, heteronormativity and their complex connections to contemporary genomics and medicine to facilitate meaningful and difficult conversations that promote equity and confront past and present wrongs.” His specific views on the biology of sex are unclear, but the activist language saturating his work is indicative.

Os Keys is a PhD candidate at the University of Washington, and describes himself as a “genderfucky nightmare goth.” An LGBTQ+ activist, Keys has blocked me on X, although we have never interacted.

Liz Dietz works at the NIH and researches “bioethics as it pertains to disability rights and LGBTQ issues” designed to “let us reckon with the past.” It is unclear what her views on the biology of sex are, but the activist language in her research is suggestive.

Kellan Baker, a health services researcher at the Whitman-Walker Institute, identifies as a trans man and LGBTQ+ activist. Baker claims to “have been every letter in the LGBTQ acronym.” Baker’s research focuses on “data equity,” and Baker has argued against binary sex classification forms.

Isabel Goldman is a trans-identifying male and an inclusion and diversity officer at Cell Press. Goldman has approvingly shared the quote “Science’s rigid commitment to binary sex and gender quashes creativity and limits progress.” Goldman has also claimed that “the categorization of people into binary, immutable sexes at birth is as much of a social construct as gender is.”

Lastly, Nikki Stevens (they/them), is a postdoctoral researcher at MIT writing a book about “abolition(ist) tech and white supremacy.” Stevens works in a “Data + Feminism Lab” that studies “data activism practices of trans-led groups in the United States.” Stevens has given talks titled “Breaking the Binary.”

That’s everyone.

One thing is clear: this is not a serious symposium concerned with truth and deepening our understanding of sex and gender in genomics—it’s a gender activism strategy session. It is completely inexcusable that there are no representatives who acknowledge biological sex as binary and immutable at this symposium. It is imperative that the NHGRI extend an invitation to individuals like Carole Hooven, Emma Hilton, Heather Heying, Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, or myself, who can offer a different, and scientifically accurate, perspective.

The NHGRI must immediately rectify their error.

==

This is like a conference of Flat Earthers, homeopathy, alien abductionists and Bigfoot hunters.

Note: "Jey" McCreight is Jen McCreight, who organized "Boobquake," a rally which came in reaction to nonsensical Islamic pseudoscience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boobquake#Inception

The Boobquake rally served to protest news reports of controversial beliefs espoused by Hojatoleslam Kazem Seddiqi, an Islamic religious authority in Iran. Seddiqi blamed women who dress immodestly for causing earthquakes. On April 19, 2010, it was reported that Seddiqi advised his listeners that "Many women who do not dress modestly lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which increases earthquakes" and Iranians should "adapt their lives to Islam's moral codes" to avoid being "buried under the rubble".

She subsequently cut off her boobs and claims she's a "he/they."

"Science in progress." 🤡🤡🤡

[newsfromstolenland]

JK Rowling has defended Posie Parker a fascist on twitter, who had Nazis had her rallys in Austrilia. And Posie Parker is kind of Nazi esque herself. JK Rowling has also had friendly convos with Matt Walsh and she also recently retweeted a racist and transphobic person. The racist and transphobic person complained about brown and black and trans colours on the rainbow flag. And JK Rowling also during Black Lives Matter in 2020 focused more on her transphobia. JK Rowling seems in league, maybe is far right now.

transphobic fascists will always have each other's backs

also, transphobia and white supremacy are inextricably linked.

the transphobic ideas of what binary genders "should" look like are entirely eurocentric (regarding body type and body hair)

AND, white colonists believed that the "inferior" (see: not white) races were in part inferior because of a lack of a rigidly defined gender binary (both because of recognition of other genders, and differences in gender roles). they believed that an important part of "taming the savages" was forcing people of colour to adhere to the eurocentric gender binary and gender roles

all this to say, transphobia and white supremacy go hand in hand

[hieronymus-botch]

the great ironic punchline about the whole jk rowling hate crusade is that to me, a conservative, jk rowling is just a slightly different flavor of progressive. i think that if her most vehement haters were to have a conversation with her, and not bring up trans shit, they'd probably find themselves agreeing on a lot.

'I think this is basically true yeah. The reason TERFs pose so much more of a threat than like, Matt Walsh types is because they expose a contradiction in mainstream progressive ideology. Because large-scale ideologies are snowballs rolling down hills that accumulate new positions every time there's a social change regardless of if they contradict previous ones, the course of 21st century gender politics has required progressivism to have its cake and eat it too by both affirming that there is no difference at all between men and women, and that men are bad. TERFism succeeds because it's able to point out the extremely obvious contradiction between these two beliefs. The entire premise of TERFism is "men are identifying as trans to trick people into thinking they're not evil predatory rapemonsters." If progressives could just declare en masse "Actually, men aren't evil predatory rapemonsters, and treating them as such by default is horrible and unjust and we should stop." TERFism would crumble, but only a small minority do this, so it remains.