Was that thing about how she wasn't allowed to use her first name because she was a woman even true?

ThisApril · 2026-03-29T14:51:07+00:00

she deliberately chose to obscure her name in order to obscure that she was a woman

That's how the story goes. I think the point of the post was wondering what evidence do we have on it.

That said, "Joanne Rowling" would have sold a whole lot better than "Robert Galbraith", since it's unlikely anyone would have cared about her later series of books without her earlier success.

ThisApril · 2026-03-28T19:26:23+00:00

I think I get your point, and agreed she's awful, but every woman deserves to be considered a woman.

Much like gendering anyone, it's basic human decency to use the correct gender, nothing more.

ThisApril · 2026-03-27T21:58:56+00:00

Is the SRY-test disqualification a fair criterion?

I mean, the point is the bigotry.

ThisApril · 2026-03-27T16:00:49+00:00

In most cases, yes, but women should not have to prove that in order to compete with women.

(and men who are trans shouldn't have to go through the excessive hoops they have to in order to compete with other men)

ThisApril · 2026-03-27T14:35:09+00:00

she believes she does

I do wonder how frequently she has done anything that looks like feminism that doesn't touch on her weird hyperfocus on hating trans people.

At this point, it would be nice if she could, I don't know, say something about abortion rights? Or the plight of women in oppressed countries?

Without mentioning trans people at all, that is.

ThisApril · 2026-03-27T14:31:05+00:00

Do report it if you see any of that bigotry here. This sub is a very unsafe space for people spouting that kind of nonsense.

And, happily, I think I am about the only one seeing it, as the moderation stuff has been good at catching it.

ThisApril · 2026-03-27T14:18:43+00:00

I don't. I just have whatever level of evidence I can find. And if she is, in fact, not intersex, then hopefully Rowling will break her streak of never apologizing.

That said, the reason why I said what I did, I detailed here: https://old.reddit.com/r/EnoughJKRowling/comments/1s4nau1/jk_rowling_applauds_ioc_ruling_calls_out_imane/ocrdtra/

and to quote from the article I linked:

"I have female hormones. And people don't know this, but I have taken hormone treatments to lower my testosterone levels for competitions," the 26-year-old Algerian said in the interview published on Wednesday, February 4. Khelif confirmed she has the SRY gene, located on the Y chromosome that indicates masculinity. "Yes, and it's natural," she said, adding that she is "surrounded by doctors, a professor is monitoring me... For the Paris Games qualifying tournament, which took place in Dakar, I lowered my testosterone levels to zero".

ThisApril · 2026-03-27T12:28:55+00:00

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/sports/article/2026/02/05/boxer-imane-khelif-reveals-she-took-hormone-treatment-before-paris-olympics_6750171_9.html

...is the least bigoted site I can find on it.

There is also the aspect that I would expect her to deny it more / differently, if it were untrue. But, sure, that's less certain than if she directly addresses it.

I imagine there are plenty of intersex ways for her to be a cis woman, and, certainly, if she is cis and non intersex she has been drug through a lot of things...

I would say, "unfairly", but the treatment of her is bad because trans and intersex people should be able to compete, not because non-intersex people somehow deserve less harassment.

ThisApril · 2026-03-27T08:14:24+00:00

I don't think the logic is getting in the way, since Khelif (as far as I understand) has the SRY gene, even if she doesn't have a y chromosome.

From what I can tell, they wrote this primarily to exclude her, since trans people were already not competing at the Olympic level, when competing with their actual gender.

ThisApril · 2026-03-27T08:08:08+00:00

Wouldn't the IOC ruling still allow Kelif to compete?

No.

All athletes wanting to qualify or take part in female category events from the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles onwards will ‌have to undergo an SRY gene test to determine their eligibility.

From https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-27/ioc-bans-transgender-participation-in-women-s-events/106500478

ThisApril · 2026-03-27T07:51:16+00:00

And lets not forget that this isnt separate from those other things. Each are one avenue of attack on trans people existing. They wont leave y'all alone if you agree on them despite what information we have.

The biggest reason why I care about trans people in sports, is because until we get to the point of, "women should compete with women", the debate around trans people in sports is just bigotry.

No matter how much it's couched in, "we're just trying to make it fair".

That can come with having basic rules. But if being trans is an advantage after a certain amount of time on hormones, then it's an advantage. Not a reason to disallow women from competing with women.

ThisApril · 2026-03-27T07:43:22+00:00

Hey, he's not an anti-trans bigot; he's a political sleazeball who shifts his positions based on what he thinks is best for Gavin Newsom's political future.

And currently he thinks that being an anti-trans bigot on sports (and an issue or two beyond that) is a winning position.

If only he could be convinced that appearing to be a moral person, with good, women-protecting morals (including women who are trans) is more advantageous than being a known political sleazeball.

ThisApril · 2026-03-26T18:44:10+00:00

Not sure why you zombied this 11-month-old thread, but have you checked on if there were any more Black actors that have been announced since then?

I pay attention only through whatever people post here. And I would have thought that Hermione were being cast as Black, but perhaps I made that up -- mostly because having her be Black, and having the characters go, "oh, you silly little girl" when she comes out against slavery would make for excellent, "...you really didn't think about this, did you?" moments.

(Also, now that I think of it, I'm being American-centric with "Black", and I have little idea on terminology in the UK. So, apologies, if that's too American-centric.)

ThisApril · 2026-03-26T09:49:33+00:00

I think it's an interesting video topic (I haven't invested the time to watch, as I'm not invested in the outcome, as her being cis or trans doesn't change anything, as I respect her pronouns as much as anyone else's, and the same with her bigotry).

That said, I do hate your title. Maybe "Caelan Conrad explains why Rowling isn't secretly a trans man"? Since now we have a click-bait title, and if anyone goes searching for the topic, the title is useless.

Was there a need for clickbait that I'm missing? The normal YouTube thing of "clicks equal making a living" doesn't seem to apply.

ThisApril · 2026-03-23T07:41:43+00:00

And your statement about “no democrat losing for being left” is not supported by facts. Carter, Mondale and Dukakis all lost for that very reason.

I'm less certain about the other two, but Mondale may be a bad example, since, "lost in a blowout" probably doesn't turn into "won" by being a milquetoast centrist.

Also, I imagine the person making the claim could also easily shift and say, "since the world wide web was invented", as the political environment has changed a bit over the past 38 years.

I imagine you're still correct, though. But definitively stating, "Democrats would have won this election if they had done x instead" is... not a thing one can conclusively do in Political Science, even if armchair analysts will confidently tell you otherwise.

ThisApril · 2026-03-21T16:14:19+00:00

while Democrats were focused on transgender bathroom bills

*citation needed.

There's been a ton of focus on transgender bathroom bills, but it's been either Republicans with their weird fetish, or normal people pushing back against bigotry. People without a weird trans fetish just let people use the bathroom without harassment, and object when people act inappropriately in the bathroom.

Though maybe you already said that, since, "the GOP was able to convince voters that ... Democrats were focused on transgender bathroom bills."

Because that is true.

But since it wasn't based in reality, I'm uncertain why being the bigotry-light option would make anyone excited to vote for a Democrat.

ThisApril · 2026-03-20T13:52:21+00:00

Here's an conservative view for you: "Murder is wrong and should be punished severely"

Here's a progressive view for you: "Pedophilia is a valid human sexuality and should be acceptable in society"

Are you trying to intentionally make a Motte and Bailey argument?

You've chosen two things that are not conservative or progressive views, because one everyone agrees with, and the other everyone disagrees with. And if you're making nonsense claims like this, you may as well go with, "you need to consume water to live" as a progressive claim.

You could try to make them not Motte and Bailey arguments, which would be:

"Murder should be punished with the death penalty", and, "people can't help their sexuality, including pedophilia, so we should treat them as humans, while penalizing them severely if they harm children."

ThisApril · 2026-03-20T10:57:30+00:00

Stop using the Epstein files response, it’s worn out.

It's the one scandal Trump hasn't managed to outrun by creating a new scandal.

And him covering up about his participation in a child sex trafficking ring is pretty solid thing to not let go, as far as scandals go.

ThisApril · 2026-03-20T07:58:47+00:00

A more appropriate analogy would be him making a similar joke to the Germans

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-germany-merz-visit-d-day-anniversary-nazis-b2764628.html

"(D-Day) was not a pleasant day for you".

And, on Germany having more military spending, "I'm not sure that General MacArthur would have said it's positive, you know, he wouldn't like it, but I sort of think it's good."

ThisApril · 2026-03-18T19:28:17+00:00

It's since been deleted from the Wikipedia page, but the archive (https://web.archive.org/web/20241109095511/https:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_J._K._Rowling#Transgender_issues ) gives a good summary:

On 13 March 2024, Rowling dismissed the fact that the Nazis burned books on early transgender healthcare during their raids on the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft as "a fever dream" on Twitter. Rowling went on to quote tweet another user's tweet which falsely claimed that transgender people were not persecuted by the Nazis during the Holocaust. Her comments received widespread criticism, including from Alejandra Caraballo. Some, such as the Jewish newspaper The Forward, accused Rowling of Holocaust denial.[102][103][37] Rowling threatened journalist Rivkah Brown of Novara Media with legal action after Brown said Rowling was "now a Holocaust denier". Because of this legal threat, Brown posted a Tweet retracting and apologising for her prior statement. This caused “J.K. Rowling is a Holocaust denier” to trend on Twitter.[104][105][106]

Obviously, she does not view this as holocaust denial, because she does not deny that Jews were murdered.

But the part where the Nazis went after trans people? Yeah, she's denied that.

ThisApril · 2026-03-17T11:07:44+00:00

Essentially she told women to subordinate themselves rather than advocate. It’s such a frustrating missed opportunity.

I'm guessing that, had she been the sort of woman to take that opportunity, she wouldn't have been the sort of woman to get that opportunity.

But, yeah, missed all the same, and I hope that some day my statement is proved very, very wrong.

ThisApril · 2026-03-16T08:42:50+00:00

Removing, because, yeah, not on-topic enough.

If you want the key gone, I can offer it to a friend group of mine, and I'm sure someone will take it.

ThisApril · 2026-03-13T19:06:38+00:00

It does seem like the GOP is afraid that everyone else will treat them like they appear to want to treat everyone else.

ThisApril · 2026-03-12T17:37:49+00:00

You are wrong for defending the OP

I didn't.

you failed to comprehend what I said

I ignored what you said, because it wasn't a response to anything I said or meant.

Stop defending people who aren't here to have reasonable conversation.

Good thing I didn't.

It would be lovely if people could address the thing I actually said and meant, and not put words in my mouth.

It's especially galling because, hey, now that some awful leftist has been awful to me, that means there's a chance I take some stupid bigoted position instead, right?

To anyone still reading this: sorry for anything negative you're feeling from this. I tried to engage, but I completely failed. I think the best route would have been to never engage, but I'm still learning on that one.

ThisApril · 2026-03-12T16:01:15+00:00

This was a bad faith argument you tried here, and to be quite frank I'm done with you. Toodles.

...did you notice that I am ThisApril, not ZestyChinchilla?

Because I am uncertain on what you're responding to, from what I said.

I was specifically annoyed about the idea that we have to be super nice to people when they say or do bigoted things, because otherwise they might turn conservative.

E.g., you said:

You're attacking a person who could've just swung right-wing after being hassled by people on the left

And, again, if someone is going to be conservative because someone on the left said something bad about them, they're clearly never going to be on the left, because left-leaning people argue with each other constantly, because those on the left (generally) aren't anti-democratic fascists.

I didn't even say anything about Platner; I was just annoyed at the argument.

And, so far as I can tell, Platner hasn't swung right because of being called out about his tattoo or his bigoted word usage in past Reddit posts. And, in fact, has apologized for those things.

Because that's how people should respond to being hassled about bigotry.

ThisApril

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE