what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

[purplehaze]

JK Rowling has done a longer post about her views.

https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k- ... er-issues/

Thanks for the link to that.

Rowling has been disproportionately singled out because she is female. There is nothing wrong with her.

[Tessa K]

JK Rowling has done a longer post about her views.

https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k- ... er-issues/

Back to changing rooms again, then.

Eddie Redmayne has weighed in now (and included trans men)

https://variety.com/2020/film/news/eddi ... eTuZ41KuvI

[Bird on a Fire]

JK Rowling has done a longer post about her views.

https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k- ... er-issues/

Thanks for finding and posting this, Stephanie. Obviously the abuse Rowling has received is indefensible.

Nevertheless, I do find it hard to square her stated aims with what actually happened. She tweeted an article from a global development social enterprise about actions that need to be taken to make menstruating safer.

She didn't tweet it to say "these are some good ideas" or even "further to this, there are trans-specific issues that warrant consideration", but rather objected to their use of inclusive language.

In her longer piece, she elaborates: "Moreover, the ‘inclusive’ language that calls female people ‘menstruators’ and ‘people with vulvas’ strikes many women as dehumanising and demeaning. I understand why trans activists consider this language to be appropriate and kind, but for those of us who’ve had degrading slurs spat at us by violent men, it’s not neutral, it’s hostile and alienating."

But I think that is missing the point - non-binary and trans people do also menstruate, and they reject the label 'woman'. So we seem to have a conflict where some women would like everybody who was born in a female body to be called 'women', regardless of their own wishes, because of misogynistic abuse meted out by an entirely separate group of people (men). ETA as a cis bloke I'm obviously not at all qualified to comment on how widespread that view is, though I note it's not shared by all the women in this thread.

At the very, very least I don't think it was wise to try to condense a nuanced position like that into a single tweet without acknowledging others' perspectives on the matter. Especially as she already knows how toxic discussions around trans issues can be, from all directions, and could therefore have predicted the need to express herself carefully.

[lpm]

In her longer piece, she elaborates: "Moreover, the ‘inclusive’ language that calls female people ‘menstruators’ and ‘people with vulvas’ strikes many women as dehumanising and demeaning. I understand why trans activists consider this language to be appropriate and kind, but for those of us who’ve had degrading slurs spat at us by violent men, it’s not neutral, it’s hostile and alienating."

But I think that is missing the point - non-binary and trans people do also menstruate, and they reject the label 'woman'. So we seem to have a conflict where some women would like everybody who was born in a female body to be called 'women', regardless of their own wishes, because of misogynistic abuse meted out by an entirely separate group of people (men). ETA as a cis bloke I'm obviously not at all qualified to comment on how widespread that view is, though I note it's not shared by all the women in this thread.

People can choose whatever name they want, whatever gender, whatever self identification. We should support them, no matter how odd or petty it seems. If somebody wants to identify as a non binary they/their pansexual called Ra, call them Ra. This is just respectful to other humans.

Likewise, some women don't want to be called menstruators, womxn, uterus owners, ciswomen, bitch, c.nt or TERF. They want to be called women. Some of the other names are now inextricably linked with abuse, in their opinion. They have every right to be called women if they want.

I don't think you can respond to "[these names are]
degrading slurs spat at us by violent men, it’s not neutral, it’s hostile and alienating" with "But I think that is missing the point".

[lpm]

At the very, very least I don't think it was wise to try to condense a nuanced position like that into a single tweet without acknowledging others' perspectives on the matter. Especially as she already knows how toxic discussions around trans issues can be, from all directions, and could therefore have predicted the need to express herself carefully.

I think the whole point is that activists and men should stop policing what women want to tweet. The deliberate bullying and silencing of women on Twitter (and elsewhere) is a major part of this issue.

Why should women have to tiptoe around, expressing carefully nuanced language with proper caveats in a 240 character tweet? Why can't they tweet like men or activists, never coming near acknowledgement of others perspectives?

I feel you should rethink this.

[tom p]

In her longer piece, she elaborates: "Moreover, the ‘inclusive’ language that calls female people ‘menstruators’ and ‘people with vulvas’ strikes many women as dehumanising and demeaning. I understand why trans activists consider this language to be appropriate and kind, but for those of us who’ve had degrading slurs spat at us by violent men, it’s not neutral, it’s hostile and alienating."

But I think that is missing the point - non-binary and trans people do also menstruate, and they reject the label 'woman'. So we seem to have a conflict where some women would like everybody who was born in a female body to be called 'women', regardless of their own wishes, because of misogynistic abuse meted out by an entirely separate group of people (men). ETA as a cis bloke I'm obviously not at all qualified to comment on how widespread that view is, though I note it's not shared by all the women in this thread.

People can choose whatever name they want, whatever gender, whatever self identification. We should support them, no matter how odd or petty it seems. If somebody wants to identify as a non binary they/their pansexual called Ra, call them Ra. This is just respectful to other humans.

Likewise, some women don't want to be called menstruators, womxn, uterus owners, ciswomen, bitch, c.nt or TERF. They want to be called women. Some of the other names are now inextricably linked with abuse, in their opinion. They have every right to be called women if they want.

I don't think you can respond to "[these names are]
degrading slurs spat at us by violent men, it’s not neutral, it’s hostile and alienating" with "But I think that is missing the point".

Maybe he should check his privilege. and watch his tone while he's about it.

[Bird on a Fire]

In her longer piece, she elaborates: "Moreover, the ‘inclusive’ language that calls female people ‘menstruators’ and ‘people with vulvas’ strikes many women as dehumanising and demeaning. I understand why trans activists consider this language to be appropriate and kind, but for those of us who’ve had degrading slurs spat at us by violent men, it’s not neutral, it’s hostile and alienating."

But I think that is missing the point - non-binary and trans people do also menstruate, and they reject the label 'woman'. So we seem to have a conflict where some women would like everybody who was born in a female body to be called 'women', regardless of their own wishes, because of misogynistic abuse meted out by an entirely separate group of people (men). ETA as a cis bloke I'm obviously not at all qualified to comment on how widespread that view is, though I note it's not shared by all the women in this thread.

People can choose whatever name they want, whatever gender, whatever self identification. We should support them, no matter how odd or petty it seems. If somebody wants to identify as a non binary they/their pansexual called Ra, call them Ra. This is just respectful to other humans.

Likewise, some women don't want to be called menstruators, womxn, uterus owners, ciswomen, bitch, c.nt or TERF. They want to be called women. Some of the other names are now inextricably linked with abuse, in their opinion. They have every right to be called women if they want.

I do agree with all of this. And, as for,

I don't think you can respond to "[these names are] degrading slurs spat at us by violent men, it’s not neutral, it’s hostile and alienating" with "But I think that is missing the point".

you're probably right that that wasn't a good response, sorry. I expect, in fact, that I'm the one missing the point.

In terms of replacing "people who menstruate" with "women", I think I'm not understanding how that excludes women, because women are people. (This is such a simple point that I'm sure I must be missing something key.) On the other hand Rowling's suggested alternative would more obviously exclude non-women who menstruate. Fishnut made a similar point here.

For instance, clunkiness aside, would "women and other people who menstruate" be acceptable?

The issue reminds me a bit of other struggles around inclusive language. For instance, during my lifetime normal parlance has gone from "actors" to "actors and actresses" and back to "actors" again, with women who act generally being described as "actors" too. I remember hearing people sniggering about phrases like "policeperson" as an example of "political correctness gone mad". Perhaps what's confusing me is that the feminist argument about inclusion used to be that we should have one word for everyone doing a particular thing, like acting or policing, and in this case the argument seems to be that by including other types of people women themselves are being erased, overlooked or denigrated.

I think I'm also a bit confused by the idea that reserving menstruation as something that only women do, as Rowling is arguing for, in some way counters misogynists calling women "menstruators", whereas it seems to me to be reinforcing it. I think that's similar to what Stephanie meant by:

Fwiw, I don't feel offended by "people who menstruate". It's actually the opposite, because it's more akin to a normal bodily function, than "oh special woman thing!"

I also note that Tessa K wasn't keen on Rowling saying that the word for "people who menstruate" is women, because it also excludes women who don't menstruate.

At the very, very least I don't think it was wise to try to condense a nuanced position like that into a single tweet without acknowledging others' perspectives on the matter. Especially as she already knows how toxic discussions around trans issues can be, from all directions, and could therefore have predicted the need to express herself carefully.

I think the whole point is that activists and men should stop policing what women want to tweet. The deliberate bullying and silencing of women on Twitter (and elsewhere) is a major part of this issue.

Why should women have to tiptoe around, expressing carefully nuanced language with proper caveats in a 240 character tweet? Why can't they tweet like men or activists, never coming near acknowledgement of others perspectives?

I feel you should rethink this.

I more-or-less agree with you, I think. Certainly the abuse and silencing of women on Twitter is appalling.

I don't think anyone should exactly be tiptoe-ing, but I think it's the "men and activists" in your post who are in the wrong. Twitter's weakness as a medium is that it encourages these kinds of hit-and-run statements that inevitably often leave important points unacknowledged. Sometimes that doesn't matter much, and sometimes that's very important. Twitter's main contribution to the online conversation seems to be prompting spats where people then have to clarify what they meant in longform blogs and interviews and thinkpieces, and then somebody tweets about that and sets off another spat.

When groups facing adversity, such as women or transpeople, run into conflict in their struggles for justice, I think there's generally enough commonality overall in their goals that the optimal outcome is alliance. Building those alliances seems to be very hard work, because different groups come with their own cultures, priorities and experiences. Adding a general atmosphere of toxicity, abuse and violence on top that makes things impossible.

So if we take a tweet by a woman like

People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?

that obviously doesn't show any understanding or respect of people who use inclusive language or think it's important. It doesn't deserve abuse in response, and I'm sure that the backlash Rowling faced was far more severe because of her status as a prominent, highly successful woman.

Nevertheless, lobbing a jibe like that into an online space that you already know is full of abuse (of women and transpeople alike) doesn't seem very helpful, and the backlash is pretty predictable. I'd expect an angry, rude response if I tweeted it, and I'm obviously a bloke on my twitter - but to a much lesser extent than Rowling got, partly because she's already got a reputation and partly for the reasons you mention.

So yes, I absolutely agree that the response Rowling got was unacceptable. I'd still like to understand better what the point of her tweet was, as it does seem problematic not just to me and some abusive twitter c.nts but also other sensible posters here. I welcome the invitation to rethink, but I need some help.

[Stephanie]

In her longer piece, she elaborates: "Moreover, the ‘inclusive’ language that calls female people ‘menstruators’ and ‘people with vulvas’ strikes many women as dehumanising and demeaning. I understand why trans activists consider this language to be appropriate and kind, but for those of us who’ve had degrading slurs spat at us by violent men, it’s not neutral, it’s hostile and alienating."

But I think that is missing the point - non-binary and trans people do also menstruate, and they reject the label 'woman'. So we seem to have a conflict where some women would like everybody who was born in a female body to be called 'women', regardless of their own wishes, because of misogynistic abuse meted out by an entirely separate group of people (men). ETA as a cis bloke I'm obviously not at all qualified to comment on how widespread that view is, though I note it's not shared by all the women in this thread.

People can choose whatever name they want, whatever gender, whatever self identification. We should support them, no matter how odd or petty it seems. If somebody wants to identify as a non binary they/their pansexual called Ra, call them Ra. This is just respectful to other humans.

Likewise, some women don't want to be called menstruators, womxn, uterus owners, ciswomen, bitch, c.nt or TERF. They want to be called women. Some of the other names are now inextricably linked with abuse, in their opinion. They have every right to be called women if they want.

I don't think you can respond to "[these names are]
degrading slurs spat at us by violent men, it’s not neutral, it’s hostile and alienating" with "But I think that is missing the point".

Maybe he should check his privilege. and watch his tone while he's about it.

Tom, this is unnecessary. Can you not drag your issues with boaf on another thread into this one, please?

[tom p]

JK Rowling has done a longer post about her views.

https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k- ... er-issues/

Thanks for the link to that.

Rowling has been disproportionately singled out because she is female. There is nothing wrong with her.

Testify.
And thank you for finding and posting that Stephanie.

[tom p]

People can choose whatever name they want, whatever gender, whatever self identification. We should support them, no matter how odd or petty it seems. If somebody wants to identify as a non binary they/their pansexual called Ra, call them Ra. This is just respectful to other humans.

Likewise, some women don't want to be called menstruators, womxn, uterus owners, ciswomen, bitch, c.nt or TERF. They want to be called women. Some of the other names are now inextricably linked with abuse, in their opinion. They have every right to be called women if they want.

I don't think you can respond to "[these names are]
degrading slurs spat at us by violent men, it’s not neutral, it’s hostile and alienating" with "But I think that is missing the point".

Maybe he should check his privilege. and watch his tone while he's about it.

Tom, this is unnecessary. Can you not drag your issues with boaf on another thread into this one, please?

Is it unnecessary though? Isn't this precisely what a phrase like "check your privilege" was intended for? Alright, the tone bit wasn't relevant - that was just a gentle dig at someone who has been being a bit sanctimonious lately, but I'll happily withdraw it.
Birdy - use whatever tone you like, even use 2-tone & just recite ska revival lyrics if you want.

[tom p]

I also note that Tessa K wasn't keen on Rowling saying that the word for "people who menstruate" is women, because it also excludes women who don't menstruate.

Yes, but tessa was wrong.
"There's a word for feathered things that fly, it's birds" doesn't mean that penguins aren't also birds, just that they are a special subset of birds.

[Stephanie]

For the avoidance of doubt, I don't agree with what Rowling has written.

I could attempt to pick it apart, but I'll just get grief, or called a handmaiden or some sh.t, and I'm pretty exhausted by the debates on here already.

For all the concern over abuse faced by women speaking on this topic, no one seems to care about what happens to any woman daring to support trans rights. Like getting called a "groomer" for example. Or having your pictures picked over to decide whether you're a "natal" woman or not. Or being doxed. And that's just what I've seen come across my own timeline. I'd take c.nt over that sort of sh.t any day.

[tom p]

For the avoidance of doubt, I don't agree with what Rowling has written.

I could attempt to pick it apart, but I'll just get grief, or called a handmaiden or some sh.t, and I'm pretty exhausted by the debates on here already.

Really?

[Sciolus]

Of course, a sufficient reason why Rowling was wrong to suggest that "people who menstruate" should be replaced with "women" is because it ignores girls -- something Sommer et al were careful not to do in their article.

[Stephanie]

For the avoidance of doubt, I don't agree with what Rowling has written.

I could attempt to pick it apart, but I'll just get grief, or called a handmaiden or some sh.t, and I'm pretty exhausted by the debates on here already.

Really?

Yes, really. I got called that on the other forum.

[tom p]

For the avoidance of doubt, I don't agree with what Rowling has written.

I could attempt to pick it apart, but I'll just get grief, or called a handmaiden or some sh.t, and I'm pretty exhausted by the debates on here already.

Really?

Yes, really. I got called that on the other forum.

That's ludakris.

[Bird on a Fire]

"There's a word for feathered things that fly, it's birds" doesn't mean that penguins aren't also birds, just that they are a special subset of birds.

This is shuttlecock erasure! Absolutely outrageous, etcetera etcetera.

[purplehaze]

One could also say what the hell is wrong with people who can't be bothered to give a measured and logical response.

https://medium.com/@rebeccarc/j-k-rowli ... 8e01dca68d

[egbert26]

Eddie Redmayne has weighed in now (and included trans men)

https://variety.com/2020/film/news/eddi ... eTuZ41KuvI

I'm glad another man has waded in and told everyone what he thinks. It's amazing how he was cancelled because he played a trans woman in The Danish Girl but now he has been absolved of his sins with this brief statement. I notice that neither he nor Daniel Radcliffe have actually addressed what Rowling was on about: the language we use to describe biological women.

I think the whole point is that activists and men should stop policing what women want to tweet. The deliberate bullying and silencing of women on Twitter (and elsewhere) is a major part of this issue.

Why should women have to tiptoe around, expressing carefully nuanced language with proper caveats in a 240 character tweet? Why can't they tweet like men or activists, never coming near acknowledgement of others perspectives?

I think this is bang on. The left-wing, SJWs or whatever you want to call them are very quick to point out the perceived bigotry of others yet misogyny is something they are blind to. If a women points out the vile misogyny of various high-profile trans rights activists they will get called every name under the sun.

When I was on Twitter scrolling through the replies to JKR's tweets I saw a response from a woman thanking JKR. She is a gender critical FGM survivor and gets called a transphobe for using the term 'FGM'. How do you think the replies to *that* went? Well, firstly, she was called a liar*. Secondly, some people doubled down on this: yes, 'FGM' is transphobic as a clitoris and labia don't always belong to people who are female**. Now, I'm not saying that many TRAs and SJWs would subscribe to this particular line of reasoning, but there weren't many people calling it out either.

Think about it: after the #metoo movement, in the midst of Black Lives Matter protests, some people 'on the right side of history' find it appropriate to tell a black woman who talks about her experience of FGM that she is a transphobe or telling lies about being called a transphobe. Interestingly, every organisation I can think of that deals with this issue calls it FGM, but are these 'activists' telling the WHO, the NHS, social services, etc. to mind their transphobia? Nope. I therefore think that these people couldn't give a single f.ck about non-inclusive language. They just like telling women to pipe down.


* She posted screen shots of all the crap she received. These were ignored.
** Don't ask. I think that the word female is used by TRAs to mean gender.

[Millennie Al]

In terms of replacing "people who menstruate" with "women", I think I'm not understanding how that excludes women, because women are people.

It's the same as with "all lives matter" and "black lives matter". By the words alone, the former obviously includes the latter, but it's the intent and usage that gives it significance. The phrase "people who menstruate" does seem a bit clumsy, and as JK Rowling is a talented author, it's quite possible that it seemed remarkable to her. But careful consideration shows that it is literally correct, and it's not an idiom which means something different than the literal words, so why imply that it was badly chosen? The tweet itself doesn't tell us, but people decided that the context of previous things she has said pointed to some kind of anti-trans sentiment, which she then confirms in her long explanation on her website.

The issue reminds me a bit of other struggles around inclusive language. For instance, during my lifetime normal parlance has gone from "actors" to "actors and actresses" and back to "actors" again, with women who act generally being described as "actors" too. I remember hearing people sniggering about phrases like "policeperson" as an example of "political correctness gone mad". Perhaps what's confusing me is that the feminist argument about inclusion used to be that we should have one word for everyone doing a particular thing, like acting or policing, and in this case the argument seems to be that by including other types of people women themselves are being erased, overlooked or denigrated.

You're never going to please everyone, so you should figure out what it right and do that. You might find you're wrong and have to change, but that's life. One difficulty you have is that you refer to "the feminist argument" as if there was one correct feminist opinion. People differ. There can be diversity of opinion even amongst people who largely agree on a position.

I don't think anyone should exactly be tiptoe-ing, ...

No. They shouldn't. And it's not confined to Twitter. Suppose you're in a pub and you clumsily bump a guy's arm and spill his beer. You say you're sorry, but he gets up, gets aggressive, and stabs you. Just because you were at fault and started the incident does not in any way excuse his behaviour. Even if you laughed in his face and said he deserved it, that would not be an excuse. We always have to realise that nobody is perfect and people will offend you from time to time. They will be ignorant and stupid, and you have to limit your reaction to what is reasonable and proportionate. Polite would also be nice. Similarly, when you are ignorant and stupid, you have a right to expect other peoples' reactions to be reasonable and proportionate. (But not polite - the essence of politeness is that it is what goes beyond what is strictly necessary).

JK Rowling was simply wrong (which is of no special significance as it comes from being merely human). As such anyone who cares is perfectly entitled to say she's wrong and try to explain why - either in an attempt to convince her or to convince the bystanders. They're also entitled to express their frustration with yet again being put in a situation where they are dismissed, disrespected, belittled, angered, or whatever. What they're not entitled to do is fire off vitriolic abuse.

[nekomatic]

It's the same as with "all lives matter" and "black lives matter".

Yes, I think it is.

…which makes it a bit surprising that you get from there to

JK Rowling was simply wrong

FWIW I assumed the ‘tone’ comment was a Rosena Allin-Khan reference.

[lpm]

JK Rowling has done a longer post about her views.

https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k- ... er-issues/

Back to changing rooms again, then.

It is a 3,692 word piece. 59 words are about changing rooms. 1.6%. I do not feel your summary of JK Rowling's article is accurate as it ignores 98.4% of the content.

There are 636 words, 17%, which are directly supportive of trans people and their rights, expressing solidarity with their struggle and decrying the discrimination and violence they face.

710 words, 19%, are about the online torrent of abuse against women that is suppressing people from discussing the issues in a sane environment.

667 words, 18%, are on her own personal experiences of male violence and misogyny.

Other issues she discusses are feminism, social deprivation, female prisoners, education, freedom of speech, gender identity theory and politics.

[tom p]

Eddie Redmayne has weighed in now (and included trans men)

https://variety.com/2020/film/news/eddi ... eTuZ41KuvI

I'm glad another man has waded in and told everyone what he thinks. It's amazing how he was cancelled because he played a trans woman in The Danish Girl but now he has been absolved of his sins with this brief statement. I notice that neither he nor Daniel Radcliffe have actually addressed what Rowling was on about: the language we use to describe biological women.

I think the whole point is that activists and men should stop policing what women want to tweet. The deliberate bullying and silencing of women on Twitter (and elsewhere) is a major part of this issue.

Why should women have to tiptoe around, expressing carefully nuanced language with proper caveats in a 240 character tweet? Why can't they tweet like men or activists, never coming near acknowledgement of others perspectives?

I think this is bang on. The left-wing, SJWs or whatever you want to call them are very quick to point out the perceived bigotry of others yet misogyny is something they are blind to. If a women points out the vile misogyny of various high-profile trans rights activists they will get called every name under the sun.

When I was on Twitter scrolling through the replies to JKR's tweets I saw a response from a woman thanking JKR. She is a gender critical FGM survivor and gets called a transphobe for using the term 'FGM'. How do you think the replies to *that* went? Well, firstly, she was called a liar*. Secondly, some people doubled down on this: yes, 'FGM' is transphobic as a clitoris and labia don't always belong to people who are female**. Now, I'm not saying that many TRAs and SJWs would subscribe to this particular line of reasoning, but there weren't many people calling it out either.

Think about it: after the #metoo movement, in the midst of Black Lives Matter protests, some people 'on the right side of history' find it appropriate to tell a black woman who talks about her experience of FGM that she is a transphobe or telling lies about being called a transphobe. Interestingly, every organisation I can think of that deals with this issue calls it FGM, but are these 'activists' telling the WHO, the NHS, social services, etc. to mind their transphobia? Nope. I therefore think that these people couldn't give a single f.ck about non-inclusive language. They just like telling women to pipe down.


* She posted screen shots of all the crap she received. These were ignored.
** Don't ask. I think that the word female is used by TRAs to mean gender.

You're spot-on egbert.
I wonder how many of the supposed TRAs are really MRAs pretending to care about trans rights for an excuse to insult women, and how many are right-wing trolls just there to sow discord.
I also really wonder how many of the younger TRAs screaming loudest are doing so to prove their allegiance to the cause to prove (to themselves and others) that it's not just a phase* and they really are trans. I remember when I first got into following my football team, I felt a need to chant as loud as I could to prove I was a real supporter, 'cos I didn't have the background of following the team for years. Then a few years later I noticed other new lads doing the same. I have a suspicion that some of the more ardent TRAs online are doing just that.

*My niece went through a trans phase of identifying as a boy (following online peer examples) for a couple of years. As a family we were all supportive (although all of us apart from her mum really thought it was probably just a phase) and her mum took her to psychiatrists and suchlike jumping through the hoops necessary to get the hormone and surgical treatment that she said she wanted. Fortunately**, she met a lad online and decided she is actually a straight girl before embarking on any physical or hormonal interventions which may have had serious consequences had she changed her mind later on.
**I mean "fortunately" only as regards the timing. Had she decided otherwise and actually been trans or gay, that would be equally fine, all that matters is that she didn't do something that she later regretted and had serious health consequences.

[secret squirrel]

You're spot-on egbert.
I wonder how many of the supposed TRAs are really MRAs pretending to care about trans rights for an excuse to insult women, and how many are right-wing trolls just there to sow discord...

On the other hand, I've seen a lot of trans-phobic men, who in most circumstances are proudly anti-feminist, who are suddenly very concerned about the integrity of women's sports etc, so it goes both ways.

[Fishnut]

My niece went through a trans phase of identifying as a boy (following online peer examples) for a couple of years. As a family we were all supportive (although all of us apart from her mum really thought it was probably just a phase) and her mum took her to psychiatrists and suchlike jumping through the hoops necessary to get the hormone and surgical treatment that she said she wanted. Fortunately**, she met a lad online and decided she is actually a straight girl before embarking on any physical or hormonal interventions which may have had serious consequences had she changed her mind later on.

Doesn't this help allay Rowling's fears that kids are being pushed to transition when they're not actually transgender? The presence of "hoops" to jump through suggests that there are checks to ensure that people are getting the necessary assessments and not getting access to treatment unnecessarily.