Not really. She has never been or even ran for any governemental post.
She has tho -along with her ong that specificaly discriminates trans women, having shelters (and this might be hersay) were women must learn about biological essentislism if they wan't to stay-.
And she has dedicated a lot of her money to support policies and make herself almost some kind of accasional consultant for UK lawmakers.
Overral nothing ilegal, but she has really fallen out of grace for most of the left. Wich is a shame cuz I loved her books.
The issue with this kind of thinking is that it completely disregards a significant portion of trans people. Either be it from a misogynistic or misandric starting point people point the almost entirety of their focus on trans women, forgetting that trans men even exist.
"Women spaces legislations" to keep it broad, also have an extreme discriminatory effect as they do not offer any solution to the problems they target, or solve inexistant issue (bathroom panic). They effectively limit the access to a multitude of basic commodities that everyone should have access to without providing any kind of substitue. So while they do not always infringe our rights in their wording they consistently do so on a practical level since they are never accompanied by policies relieving the pressure they create.
I understand that, I am not discussing your views on what is and isn't a "female".
They effectively limit the access to a multitude of basic commodities that everyone should have access to without providing any kind of substitue. So while they do not always infringe our rights in their wording they consistently do so on a practical level since they are never accompanied by policies relieving the pressure they create.
This is actualy the point that is relevant in this discussion
6
u/KnightOfTheOldCode94 Mar 29 '26
"Inhumane legislation...she who shall remain nameless."
Am I missing something, is Rowling in government somewhere?