@R_Ryder Sure, primary and most obviously overt example is her support of protest against Scotland’s at-the-time new inclusion law that would allow people who can provide evidence of living as their preferred gender for 3 months. Inherent to the bill was a path to legal gender reassignment without prior surgery or hormones – which JKR stated would (paraphrasing for brevity) “provide protections of those who’ve had full sex reassignment surgery to intact males.” Largely disregarding the bizarre use of the term “intact male,” – a veterinary term for a non-neutered animal – it’s clear that JKR thinks that trans-women who’ve not yet gone through surgery do not deserve the legal protections normally afforded to women even if they’ve been presenting and living as one. She also thinks that “male-oriented bodies” will use the bill to assert themselves further into women-only spaces. People who would force themselves into spaces like that are not going to wait on some government “thumbs up” to do so.
Essentially, she believes that trans women aren’t women. She fairly up-front about her belief that they are fundamentally not women as well, and that they shouldn’t have access to the same spaces other women are in. If, however, trans women are women, as is the position of many, then she’s just galvanizing more people to suppress a subset of women. There are nuances to be discussed about the inclusion of trans women in certain, very specific spaces, but a blanket exclusion is indicative of a relatively poor understanding of biology.
I’ll let you have the last word here if you want it, but I’m just now thinking that this is probably not the kind of interaction wanted on a weekly article such as this. I didn’t want to leave you unanswered, however, and won’t/wouldn’t have minded continuing the conversation in a more personal format such as messages.