"In a long winded fashion what she said could reasonably be interpreted as trans women aren't women."
Isn't that a fair question to be asking and within the realm of scientific plausibility?
The frenzied cancel mob attacking her on Twitter was frankly insane. The fact that you need to be a billionaire to survive that and speak (or earnestly question) the truth is not good.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/j-k-rowling-s-maya-for...
I think JK Rowling's main point is that trans activists conflate sex and gender and this creates unfair outcomes in areas like sports, not to mention there's a deeply anti-science bent to it (for example denying that trans women have any biological advantages).
For being one of the few cultural mainstream voices speaking against those aspects in particular, despite the vitriol she receives, I think she's brave and I appreciate that.
Maya didn't have her contract renewed because she said things like the senior director of Credit Suisse was "a man who likes to express himself part of the week by wearing a dress"
Not for advocating for fairness in woman's sports.
To be clear as far as athletics. Trans people make up 0.5% of the population. The female->male portion is most apt to experience on average a measurable disadvantage while the male->female portion if they start hormones when it is medically advisable to do so wont experience the same clear average advantage as a male athlete who simply declared himself a female one day and switched teams.
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trans-women-retain-a...
From the British Journal of Sports Medicine
> “For the Olympic level, the elite level, I'd say probably two years is more realistic than one year,” said the study's lead author, Dr. Timothy Roberts, a pediatrician and the director of the adolescent medicine training program at Children's Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, Missouri. “At one year, the trans women on average still have an advantage over the cis women," he said, referring to cisgender, or nontransgender, women.
> For the first two years after starting hormones, the trans women in their review were able to do 10 percent more pushups and 6 percent more situps than their cisgender female counterparts. After two years, Roberts told NBC News, “they were fairly equivalent to the cisgender women.”
It's a tempest in a teapot. All things being equal you are likely to end up with a small percentage of woman's athletics being trans women and nothing else changes. This is especially true of school athletics which are after all supposed to be for the betterment of the student body as opposed to for objective success.
https://play.acast.com/s/f3fb5c75-b943-4f5d-bd87-27c91611dd2...
The only reason the phrase TWAW exists is as an ideological counter to "trans women are men". They're really not either one, and saying trans women are women, full stop, is just an indefensible position.
This is fundamentally a different question from should someone hate her or say hateful things to her. Anything that stirs up strong emotions and reaches millions will result in both reasonable dialogue and insane screeching. The people who reasonably disagree with her can't do anything about the nutjobs nor are they responsible for same.
I disagree, because she doesn't want to strip anyone of any rights. I think people scolding others on these issues could seriously profit from a bit of headwind.
If you cannot be convinced to let people have their standpoints, I am for canceling you. Believe me, I would not enjoy it like you do.
Imagine if someone said its totally wrong to put Jewish people in camps, after all they deserve the same rights as you and I, but maybe they really did cause us to lose WWI...
There are people who really are just mistaken and then there are others who are weaponizing this strategy to minimize their obvious racism.
I think she is merely incorrect not malicious but the reaction is easy to understand and it absolutely has to do with the size of her megaphone not just what she said. Someone who wasn't the world famous author of Harry Potter just wouldn't have got the same reaction in the first place.
JK rowling has a billion dollars and a bright future despite the reaction to her views. Can you give me an example of some people who have actually and in fact been canceled?
Protecting billionaires from people saying mean things about them on twitter doesn't seem like a worthy cause.