J.K. Rowling Stands For Human Rights

Yes, she does. She does not say to club them with cudgels and to reduce them to ashes. She states categorically she supports them wholly. The only thing she does not support is them claiming to be women when TRANS-women are not women. Their DNA does not denote the female XX. It can never denote XX because they are fundamentally and will remain XY. Even XXY is still a female. XYY is not. It is still fundamentally male. The thing she is angry about as are most women, ones who have been fired for supporting women-based agendas and who have been silenced by having their platforms removed, have been silenced for wanting women-based places and spaces invaded by men who ID as women and who still have penises. This has been happening up in Scotland where she lives to rampant proportions due to a law there that clearly states if you ID as a woman, you may obtain a certificate only that states you are allowed to use women's spaces despite the fact you have no intention of getting sexual reassignment. This means they can enter changing rooms, washrooms, domestic violence shelters, and prisons without issue because of their "human rights" to do so.

Women have been told to shut up and been called TERFS, cis-women, etc. Basically pejorative terms. To note, I am not a TERF. I support the transgender community, however, I do not support them being allowed to put on a costume they think is about "being a woman" and I do not support being dubbed a "cis" anything. I am a woman. We fought hard through Sufferage and other things like abortion rights and equality in work and such. To be called "cis" is disgusting, derogatory, and dehumanizing. But hey, they can call us TERFs and other things and if we point that out, we're called transphobic.

JK has also shone a light on a problem with mis-identifying body dysphoria as a reason to quite literally feed largely female children puberty blocking drugs in order to prepare them for transgender surgery in their early teens. These drugs destroys the ovaries, fallopian tubes, and uterus rendering girl children under the age of 10 unable to have children. We do not even spay or neuter our animals before they have their first heats, so why is it allowable to feed these largely babies these types of drugs? They did that to women in the 50s with thalidomide thus resulting in deformaties in children born of women fed that drug. So are you going to tell me it's perfectly fine to feed these kinds of drugs to pre-teenage kids, mostly girls, to stop them from developing breasts and their periods? The age of consent in most countries is 16. We don't allow kids to drive before that age. To vote and drink and to join the armed forces a person needs to be 18, but perfectly fine to give these kids these drugs.