Anti-trans campaigning

Anti-trans campaigning radicalises and spreads like anti-vaxx, or conspiracist lies. It is not a proper position for any feminist or Quaker to adopt.

The first myth is that men will use the ability to “identify” as trans as a way to access women’s spaces, and women will be unable to resist. The seducers seeking to make converts at this stage pretend that they are not hostile to “real transsexuals”, just to abusive men. Even this myth makes me unsafe: it suggests to women that there are people who appear exactly like me– read as AMAB, presenting female- who are just pretending, for voyeuristic purposes, or even to sexually assault them. It’s a lie because self-declaration has always been the basis of trans diagnosis and trans rights.

As people go down the rabbit hole, beginning to believe the myths, the group of “real transsexuals” gets more and more circumscribed. Stories about the motivations of trans women spread, of gay men transitioning to trap straight men, or of autogynephilia. There is fear-mongering about penises, though most trans women have had lower surgery, or want it, and do not want their penises seen by anyone.

Eventually there is a campaign for “sex-based rights”, for a rigid distinction between sex and gender, so that even “real transsexuals” must be excluded. And yet the first myth, of being frightened of predatory men not real transsexuals, still spreads.

Campaigning for “sex-based rights”, making a rigid distinction between sex and gender, takes no notice of how society is. Society assigns gender at birth, and everyone is subjected to different treatment and expectations based on what sex others perceive them to be. In all societies there are gender-variant people who do not fit the gender stereotypes, and some of them have always transitioned.

That anti-trans campaigning hurts actual people. Harmless transitioners are treated with fear and suspicion. And feminist campaigning energy, rather than addressing real problems like unequal pay or street harassment, is diverted to deal with a symbol.

The effort is to see us and treat us as a class rather than as individuals, and anti-trans campaigners, along with the Times and other right wing propaganda, relentlessly focus on a few criminal or objectionable trans people, saying the worst individuals are typical of the class, and blackening those individuals as much as possible. Law allows trans women to be excluded from women’s spaces but the exclusion must be proportionate to the need, so normally individuals, rather than all trans women, will be excluded. The campaigners demand that all are.

Gender variant people, those who transition, those who find another way to express their gender variance, and those who are closeted, oppressed by gender yet finding no way to stand against it, should support and affirm each other. Promoting one way of responding to gender variance over others helps none of us. The anti-trans campaigners give too great emphasis to those who regret surgery, and revert. Reverters exist, but are apparently a small percentage of transitioners. Anti-trans campaigners reinforce a binary view, but detransitioners find a new way to be gender variant. Here is a call for solidarity between groups, against the “logic of fracture” which appears when the pain of victimhood leads to callousness or blindness to – or worse, pleasure in – the pain of others who are coded as adversaries; their humanity – their victimhood, too – is obscured by fear and suspicion. Fracture makes us mutually suspicious and reduces empathy, and the writer recommends solidarity- in a very different context, that of incipient communal violence, but in a way which applies to all groups tempted to mutual antagonism.

Solidarity requires overcoming differences to find common cause. That’s what makes it powerful as a concept… Solidarity is almost never easy. It is often less immediately gratifying. It can feel like being left vulnerable in what already feels like a moment of great vulnerability. But it is required to resist the process of fracture. 

Anti-trans campaigning is not proper to a Quaker because it ignores the truth of how society is and how trans people are, and demonises us. It divides people, gender variant people and equality campaigners, and sets us against each other. Quakers should not engage with it or give it any credibility. It is not proper to a feminist because it pretends a threat where there is none. It creates a symbol of women’s rights, where women campaign for a symbol rather than for any improvement in women’s position, just as Leave voters and anti-immigrant campaigners are campaigning for a symbol of their value rather than something which will improve their lives.

The genuine revulsion such campaigners feel for trans surgery prevents them seeing that hostility to trans people in wider society drives us to prove ourselves genuine by surgery.

Anti-trans campaigning is based on a lie. And yet, like anti-vaxx, and white supremacist myths, it pretends in its view of sex not gender to be rational, science-based, and concerned for people’s well-being. Trans exists, and they deny reality, calling our rational response to a gendered society a mental illness.

Cutting out anti-trans campaigners from discernment would allow loving consideration of the needs of people, of trans people, detransitioners, gender variant people, and the interest of outwardly gender-conforming people in the matter. It would respect individual choices of people in how to live their lives, and help others understand and support them, and thus be enabled to find new ways of living the good life.

I am aware that several are British people using their own names, and the anger against trans people seems an excellent place for Russian trolls to operate, saying things people will agree with, radicalising them, making them less likely to listen to opposing views.

Anti-trans campaigners whine that they are silenced, when they are well-funded and supported by such as The Times, and given prominent platforms including at Westminster and Holyrood. Silencing their falsehoods, hatred, and misconceptions would do us all good.

Love song

How could I claim to love you, and ever cause you pain?
You’ve said our friendship’s over. I won’t call you again
I battle to forget you and you still invade my brain
I re-read all our emails and I’m crying out your name

You smile at me and touch me, and climb into my head
Obsessing a week after, I wish that I was dead
I think of you each moment, your body haunts my night
And then I wake up weeping, deprived of my delight

I see you in the distance. You’re shining like a star
Some worshippers are near you, I worship from afar
In movement and in stillness, your beauty blows my mind
You’re brilliant, witty, clever, charismatic and unkind.

Anticipating the Quaker Gathering on Diversity and Inclusion

What would I contribute to a weekend on diversity and inclusion with Quakers? I imagine crying like Cassandra and being ignored. Transphobic campaigning spreads through society like Anti-vaxx, or conspiracist lies, I would say, and people would switch off. Or I would speak of trying to become aware of white privilege, and be so caught up in internal anxiety that I could not be present to the actual situation. How would I simply become present, when all this is coming up?

The organisers are supportive on trans issues. I should calm my panicked soul. They advise listening to a podcast on race, watching the keynote speeches from the previous gathering again, one from a non-binary person, and reading some resources. These include two books, one on race and the other Trans Britain, edited by Christine Burns; the YFGM trans statement and the North East Thames AM statement, both supportive. And this blog post, where I read [The previous] gathering clearly showed that there are members of the Quaker body in pain. The way through this conflict is for every Friend in the Yearly Meeting to take on the pain of this conflict as their own. We need to embrace a corporate suffering. We can’t distance ourselves from it and say ‘it’s that Friend’s/that Meeting’s problem’. The issue of trans-inclusion is an increasingly visible open wound in British Quakerism. For its own health, the whole Yearly Meeting needs to inform itself about this raw subject.

Because it was my pain, and my Friend’s, who said she might be driven out of Quakers by our untruthfulness (our willingness to accept trans people in the “acquired gender”) at that last weekend. My LM had powerfully affirmed her position, and yet she felt driven away by the trans-positivity of that gathering. And I see another AM’s minute supporting “sex-based rights”, code for trans exclusion, and despite all the trans-positivity I fear exclusion too. There is no “we”, but she and I both focus on the negatives for our respective sides in this dispute.

If I went, my fear is that in my anguish and desperation I would explode, and rant about the signs of trans exclusion in the Society. I know a truth, and that truth imprisons me: trans women are harmless, but trans excluders Threaten us! I thought of asking for a non-gendered toilet as I am afraid of using the women’s, in case someone objects to my face.

Might I just accept my pain and fear, my resentment, the current events which raise echoes in me of all the rejection I have suffered before, and sit with them? The rejection was huge, and left me alone.

What might I be doing wrong?

I cannot admit my vulnerability. So I suppress the signs of it and use my gifts of articulacy to Demand all signs of rejection be removed, even the ones I imagine. I still have a big red button: it is less obvious now, but someone might still find it, reminding me of hurt, past rejection and vulnerability, and I would go off on one. The need to not go off, which would lead to me fruitlessly trying to suppress rather than accept my feeling, would make things far worse.

Another post by Mark Russ is recommended, which comments on Revelation: Before the silence of true worship comes the inward earthquake. Fox saw this as the experience of inward judgment, the shaking out of all our false illusions, our self-deceptions, everything that is not of God and God’s Kingdom. This is partly why we’re called Quakers! We cannot examine our privilege and avoid the difficult emotional, inward work. We cannot have God’s Kingdom without God’s judgement. Although painful, the purpose of God’s judgement is our liberation. We must allow the Light to illuminate our chains if we are to be released from them.

What would I say of white privilege? It seems to me that I am noticing what before was unconscious, that I act to put non-white people in their place, to enforce white superiority. I see after I have done it and feel shame. In the situation itself, I do not see. It can be as subtle as a look, or a way of walking using the width of a corridor and making the other step to the side to pass, or a way of speaking to different people differently. My purpose in confessing would be to suggest this is a widespread pattern of behaviour amongst whites. I would fear not being understood, being seen as confessing solely for myself and so becoming one of the bad, racist people outside the in-group. Here too there are my needs, getting in the way of my actions.

I like to think of myself as effective and persuasive. My greatest fear is that I am not, that my best expostulations meet derision and disbelief. So I would bring my wounds, scars and vulnerability, and being aware of them and not ashamed might bring my humanity, too.


Looking at these paintings, I at first thought the difference between them was the photographic reproduction rather than the painting itself.

I studied the strange way the carter is riding one of a pair of horses, the group of three figures, the markings on the flank of the central cow. Eventually I saw how the rainbow is further from the tree in the upper picture, which is in London, than in the lower, in Munich. Only then did I notice the greater relative height of the lower picture. The greater clarity could be a trick of the reproduction. Colours are not always perfect.

I wondered at recreating such a complex scene. Sunlight strongly picks out the trunk of one of the trees on the right, and in both paintings the trunk is a similar shape. The upper one is much larger, 53″ high rather than 37″. Did the artist paint the same scene, happy to paint the same people, cows, trees, in order to demonstrate different light? The London picture seems to have a clearer, colder Northern light, and clearer detail, in faces and leaves.

The painting was a few decades before Newton’s work with prisms. I note the colour of the rainbow and wonder at it, I must look at what colours I actually see, rather than merely expect, next time I see a rainbow.

Only when I am writing this do I see the lower picture is the copy, not Rubens but “after” Rubens. Even then this site ascribes it to Rubens. Suddenly I see the two pictures differently. The clarity, I now assume, is greater technical skill. The upper picture is simply better.

Physical spirituality

I sat in my back yard in the sunshine, in my t-shirt, unusual in England in December. As the cobweb shivered in a breath of wind, the long anchoring strand vibrated, and for a fraction of a second would reflect light then not. The light flickering along the strand was beautiful, and I paid it my attention. There is my body, warm, breathing, apparently still yet with so much going on, and a particular experience of a strand of spider-silk and of sunlight which I have spontaneously decided to give my attention, a physical process of sensory organs and brain processing.

Cartesian dualism, the idea of a soul, and the Enlightenment concept of the rational human mind for which the body is hardly more than a life-support system have split us in two, distorting and reducing our experience. I am not a spirit in a material world, a soul having a physical experience, but an animal, honed by half a billion years of evolution into more than is contained in the concept “mind”.

I am an animal, and part of my ongoing process of maturing is escaping the constraints of the mind I have been taught to value into the experience of my whole self and its whole capacity. Because of my particular experience, I call this learning “spiritual”, and yet so much of my “spirituality” relates to inhabiting my physical being, nerve cells, receptors, senses, processes. More broadly, I consider maturing is the process of learning what it means to be human, escaping constraints on ones humanness imposed by society or circumstance, and learning to use full human capacity- including “spiritual experiences” which do not make sense to the rational mind.

I could not see what I had not been taught to value. Then I saw it and because was terrified of it, I saw it distorted. Now I see it face to face. Finding it seems a spiritual experience and much of what I find is related to being an evolved animal in a physical space- of course, because that is what I am, rather than a soul or a mind. What I experience as mind is part of the animal.

It is good for us to spend time outside. It makes us feel better. This may be the skin using sunshine to create vitamin D, or being away from work for a moment (for those of us who work indoors) but for me it is the unpredictability of outside, the increased sensory stimulation, with more things moving and alive. We leave our most controlled environment and become animals in a habitat. If after at least eleven years of education, mostly sitting at desks listening speaking and writing “sensibly”, we have learned to value our minds this helps us value our bodies. Others may have had a more physical childhood than I, and still value their minds more. I walked over hills with my dog and with the Scouts, and leapt from a pile of bales of hay into a pile of sawdust at the nearby farm with the farm worker’s children, and am still doing this “spiritual” work.

I was thinking that my belief in God is different from my belief in Ediacarans, but it is not, not really. I believe in God, Father and Mother, Almighty Creator, in a way which cannot be expressed as a logical sequence of propositions, but is emotional, is a matter of trust. And I believe in pre-Cambrian fauna, but I could not evaluate the logical sequence of propositions used to say what they are: I could not date the rocks, or assess evidence whether they are multi-cellular eukaryotes or colonies of bacteria. Again it is finding trust, emotionally, in something greater than myself, in the truthfulness and co-operation of my culture.

Light, Dark, Equality, Dignity

If we have a pie-in-the-sky, everything is beautiful attitude, we are going to be trapped by the darkness because we don’t see clearly enough to separate the wheat from the chaff. Conversely, if we can only see the darkness and forget the more foundational Light, we will be destroyed by our own negativity and fanaticism, or we will naively think we are completely apart and above the darkness. Instead, we must wait and work with hope inside of the darkness, even our own— while never doubting the light that God always is, and that we are too.- Richard Rohr.

Wow. I have adopted Everything is Beautiful as a motto. I had to. I knew that eight years ago, because with my negative attitude I was seeing too much blackness, in myself and in the world, seeing things that might be good as bad or threatening. I had to say Everything is beautiful as an antidote to that. And I was not seeing the real threats or darkness if everything appeared dark to me.

I did not understand the well known quotes:

I saw also that there was an ocean of darkness and death, but an infinite ocean of light and love, which flowed over the ocean of darkness. And in that also I saw the infinite love of God;

The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it (comprehended it not).

I was not ready to balance light and dark. How could I see light in the darkness, as in the yin/yang symbol which I learn is called a Taijitu? Yet today this thought is strong in me: the anti-trans campaigners are foolish as well as oppressive; what they have been taught to hate is no threat, what they have been taught to demand is no benefit; and yet I love their standing on dignity. No, they will not simply accept us. They will stand up for their (imagined) interests, and for their Sisters.

I love the solidarity. I love the self-assertion, even if they are more unhinged and obsessive than anti-vaxxers.

Probably it is better not to see things as chaff, too easily. If in doubt, it’s wheat until proven otherwise. And, when proven otherwise, recognise that. Rohr says hard and fast laws are not good at distinguishing good from bad: for an example of that, take the moral rule that “homosexuality is sinful”. Possibly moral principles might. Here’s one.

Whatever gets in the way of the I-Thou encounter is Wrongful.

Things do, unfortunately. This article in the Guardian portrays Mr Corbyn’s politics as close to mine- valuing all human beings equally, including foreigners- and opposed to older voters’ transactional, us and them politics. Voters were fixated on the inevitability of scarcity, and the need to guard against naive hope. They wanted politicians loyal to them.

What gets in the way of an I-thou encounter? Fear, a sense of painful vulnerability, not dignity, a sense of one’s own worth. In the encounter there is vulnerability which has to be accepted joyously, a small price for the blessing of seeing and being seen, having a sense of all conditions of people so one can speak to all conditions.

If my dignity gets in the way of encounter I should change myself rather than shout at the world. But it is not my dignity, but unearned assertion. I want the true dignity of a human being, unique and valuable, and one of 7.8bn, not the dignity of a white, or middle class, person, from my place in a formal structure in society. We are fearfully and wonderfully made. Without the formal structure there is vulnerability, but without that vulnerability there can be no encounter.

Merry Christmas!

Blessings and delights to you for Christmas.

In a beautiful wilderness, with a beautiful innocent lamb, John the Baptist is in contemplation.

Jesus here is a pudgy baby, but he has a direct gaze. He can see into your soul.

Mary has her hair uncovered, which is unusual. I read that’s Judas lighting the candles. John the Baptist as a baby is on the right, and Anne, Mary’s mother, reads a book.

Gender identity

Gender identity is not a useful concept. You might say your gender identity is male or female, but what does that say other than you are trans or cis? (Note the inclusive language. I do not want to alienate my cis readers.)

I am happier transitioned. Therefore I am trans. I wanted to transition more than anything else in the world. Therefore I was trans. There is no need for an additional concept of gender identity. I transitioned because I am trans. That is enough.

And, what is my gender identity anyway? If there is some identity as a woman women have because they are women, a large part of that for most involves being attracted to men. Well, I am attracted to women, and lesbians are no less women. (Note the non-inclusive language: I expect trans men just to nod along and make such translation as they need to their own experience themselves.)

The concept has value to explain ourselves to cis people only if they are uncomprehending but basically affirming. “You know you’re a woman/man, right? Well, so do I.” But it doesn’t work with people who are hostile. If someone asks “Are you a man or a woman?” I know they think I am a man. Saying I have a female gender identity won’t persuade them that I am a woman, or even that it is OK for me to express myself female. And most people are familiar enough with the idea of trans people that they don’t need an additional idea of gender identity. If they say, “I don’t understand it,” I can say that with all the prejudice and loss of privilege, I am still happier like this. You don’t need to understand, you just need to empathise.

We always used to say that everyone has a gender identity, cis or trans, and the concept of a cis person’s gender identity has even less meaning than a trans person’s.

The concept has little value to explain ourselves to ourselves. Picture me in 1999, sick fed up of the struggle to appear Manly, wanting to transition and terrified of that. So I learned of The Script- “I knew there was a problem aged three, and I knew what it was aged five”- and doubted myself further. I had not as a child known I was a girl. I was alienated from myself and my feelings as a child, and had taken in to myself the desperate need to appear manly, but I had no sense of a firm, life-long gender identity. I was not sure of any fixed identity. The script does not aid a diagnosis as trans- DSM V states you have to have had your “strong desire to be of the other gender” for only six months.

The people most alienated by the concept of gender identity are the people I most want as allies: gender variant people who won’t transition. For a gender-non-conforming woman who says her sex is important to her, for feminist solidarity, for the common experience of sexism and gynaecological problems, and of gestation and birth, gender identity is a repulsive idea, because it enforces gender stereotypes. Some ignore the stereotypes- “I’m as happy in overalls maintaining my motorbike as I am all dolled up for an evening out”. Some find them oppressive. Sex is real, and the basis of oppression, of slut-shaming, period-shaming, pain not taken seriously, and gender is the tool of that oppression, not allowing women to be “bossy” or “feisty”, demanding stereotypes they don’t fit.

The words “gender identity” don’t add anything. I am trans. I am happier expressing myself as a woman, with a woman’s hair, clothes and sometimes makeup, a woman’s name. My way of being is my own, and I don’t need anyone to see it as particularly “feminine”. Being trans is OK.

To an extent, I am calling for a tactical retreat. Many people campaigning against trans people find the very idea of gender oppressive. Talking of gender identity does us no good, and just riles them.

Self-respect VII

The dentist advised against filling my wisdom tooth: normally they would just whip it out. It was too far back for root canal work and they would not bother with an implant. I don’t want mutilated, so two days later I was lying back, relaxing so as to be as comfortable as possible, while a man drilled away inside my mouth producing the smell of burning. “Try to breathe through your nose as much as possible,” he said, and I mentally kicked myself. Breathing through my nose made me more comfortable. “You’re doing very well, Miss Flourish,” he said. The relaxation technique I learned for electrolysis was working.

When I was learning to drive I noticed that nothing made me make mistakes so much as praise. If the instructor said I had done something well, I would almost immediately make a stupid mistake. That made no sense to me. I suppose it could reinforce my arrogance so that I was careless, or it could have increased my nervousness. Later I decided I was either restoring my view that I was useless, or self-punishing. I thought of that in the dentist’s chair, and saw that I did not immediately tense up or start to gag. I am not doing it any more.

In order to keep your hand in an ice bucket for longer (psychological researchers get people to do the oddest things) it helps to swear continually. Swearing stiffens the sinews. I found I was doing it to get out of bed, but not at myself any more, not cursing myself as useless, but trying to toughen up and gather the energy.

If I lie in bed and do not get up, I am not always the best person to ask why. It could be because I am lazy and useless, and the old self-punishing self would use that to prove it. But that’s also a reassuring belief: I could get up if I really wanted to. I am not depressed, which means sick, which means the neuro-transmitters are not there to get up. It’s just I don’t want to.

It is very tempting to think I am capable of more than I do. I would be OK, somehow, if I were capable, it’s just that I haven’t seen it yet. So when asked what I can’t do for the purpose of benefit assessment that creates a difficulty. If I cling to the false belief that I can do more than I do, I lose benefits. If I state what I actually do, feeling a loss of energy and motivation in the afternoon, not getting up in the morning, I might get the benefit. Telling the truth about my capacity is painful because I don’t want to admit that truth, it’s too frightening.

But then, what do I do? There were things I might have done today (Friday) and what I actually did was a blog post on JK Rowling‘s comments on Maya Forstater. My post on the latter got a lot more views than my posts usually get, I had for once touched the zeitgeist. If my response to seeing how many views I get resembles addictive behaviour, should I just give it up? This is the thing I actually like!

JK Rowling

Is JK Rowling transphobic? Not necessarily. She does not tweet a lot. She has retweeted a bit about Brexit this year, of tweets and articles opposing it. [Update- I wrote this before Rowling’s hate screed. I tried to give the benefit of the doubt.]

I’ve seen a meme claiming she tweeted, Ron Weasley was indeed transgender. Ron was born female but magically transitioned to female [sic] at the age of four. Gender transition is much easier in the magical world than it is in the muggle world- yet so similar. Yet a search doesn’t find those words. It is a forgery. When asked in 2014 if there were LGBT wizards at Hogwarts, she replied, But of course. If Harry Potter taught us anything it’s that no-one should live in a closet.

She followed a number of anti-trans campaigners, and liked some of their tweets, but that does not mean she is an anti-trans campaigner herself. Then yesterday she tweeted,

Dress however you please.
Call yourself whatever you like.
Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you.
Live your best life in peace and security.
But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?

So. It’s proven, say some. She’s transphobic. And the media world wide has an interest: it’s in NBC and CBS. The Times has a picture of three women with a banner “WOMEN SPEAK UP!”. That’s terrifying. The attempt is to make campaigning against trans a mainstream feminist issue.

Pink News quoted LGBT folk condemning her. Some are vitriolic: “Who knew she would identify with Voldemort”.

And I’m not. My greatest fear is that people identified as transphobes or anti-trans campaigners or TERFs will take up that point of view. So this is my defence of JK Rowling.

She says what Maya Forstater did was state that sex is real. The anti-trans campaigners would have you believe that sex is real and gender does not exist. No-one has a “gender identity”, it’s just a word trans people use to try to justify ourselves.

Of course sex is real. Almost everyone has a reproductive system, and which you have, and which you were born with, matters. And trans people talk of our gender identity. But also, there are gender stereotypes in the world which affect everyone, and one way gender-variant people deal with that is to transition.

She did not merely state sex is real, though. She had a public dispute with a non-binary person and insisted that they were a man. That’s the moment where it stops being merely having an opinion, and starts to encroach on others’ rights.

I don’t know why the employer failed to renew the contract. Forstater says the reason is her position on trans. I could not find a statement from the employer on the reason, but they say she was “an unpaid visiting fellow and occasional paid consultant”, so not entitled to challenge the failure to renew. She’s the author of some articles still on their website.

Knowing of JK Rowling’s initial poverty, I see why she has sympathy with people losing their jobs, and I am glad of it. The technical details of Forstater’s employment rights are not in the papers, and possibly few people would think them relevant. Forstater had that source of income, and now she doesn’t.

That’s the defence. Sympathy with someone sacked. I am wary of calling someone a hater or transphobe. Forstater is a proven extreme hater and transphobe- hating trans people is part of her “sense of self”. Rowling- I don’t know. I would rather refer to transphobic acts or speech than transphobic people, unless clearly proven. As for the tweet-

Forstater says gender identity, and gender transition, is a myth. That’s more than saying sex is real, but her backers deny it.

“Force women out of their jobs”? That’s another TERF myth. The idea that trans women are men is widespread, not simply among TERFs.

So, rather than a “transphobe”, leave alone a TERF, I would call JK Rowling ignorant of trans issues but sympathetic with a woman who has lost her job. But, the tweet has worldwide attention, and is at best ignorant, so the tweet is transphobic.

So tweets accusing her of being a TERF are harmful. Attacked like this, anyone might be wounded, and keep asserting what they thought was reasonable, and get attacked more. It could drive her to the TERFs.

Trans women are women. Transition is an appropriate way of dealing with gender variance. Trans women are not a threat in women’s spaces, and should only be excluded if there are specific reasons relating to the particular trans woman. But not everyone contradicting any of that is immutably hostile to trans women. It could just be ignorant. It could be considering others’ rights as well as our own- I sympathise with people losing their jobs, often.

Slate says she’s no longer an LGBTQ ally. It’s a good article to explain what is the nature of Forstater’s case, and saying Rowling is not an LGBT ally- standing together- may get her to rethink. The Spectator, though, exults: this is a turning of the tide, and people will now speak openly of the need [Irony alert] to protect real women from transsexuals.

The more publicity such disputes get, the more our enemies prosper.

8 June: Rowling is more clearly transphobic here.