Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Thoroughly recommend the recent 2-part Origin Story podcast on JK Rowling. It lays out her descent into full-on troll while remaining sympathetic, balanced and fair, as well as tackling some of the terrible “research” used to back up the rights-eroding political changes of late.

It also touches on the Hampstead ponds debacle.

This sounds remarkably self-aware by Sharron Davies. Alternatively, as Iain Macleod said about Enoch Powell, it's one thing to be a fell traveller, it's quite another to stay on the train while it crashes through the station buffers. Mr Wynter might also reflect on that.

Here's another person who might reflect on Macleod's words. One minute you're protecting women's sports, the next you're monitoring Police office at Pride marches.

A long, but very well written and interesting read on how banning trans kids in sport was always a gateway, not an end in itself.

https://www.readtpa.com/p/reasonable-concerns

I’ve just read this piece. Maybe I’ve missed something, but it looks like it can be summarised thus :

- Trans-gender kid grows up, experiencing prejudice, hatred, trauma, and wilful misunderstanding.

- Trans -gender kid finds inordinate comfort in the works of J.K. Rowling. Becomes something of a mega fan.

- Trans-gender kid, now grown-up and successful, says that she is now in great pain because JK Rowling, the author of the stories she loves, because Ms. Rowling allegedly considers her “not valid” .

She does not elaborate on what exactly Rowling has said or done to cause her such pain, and explicitly refuses to argue logically against any of the, in my view extremely cogent , points that Rowling makes in her essay on the subject of a couple of years ago. It’s almost as if for her it is taken as read that Rowling is a malevolent TERF.

I can’t see the point of this. Lord knows what Jo Rowling makes of it.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jk-rowli ... 1P_b_4BK4g

Crabcakes wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2026 9:00 pm A long, but very well written and interesting read on how banning trans kids in sport was always a gateway, not an end in itself.

https://www.readtpa.com/p/reasonable-concerns

It's good to see an acknowledgment of the issue around women's sports in there. I don't think the IOC are wrong though, and don't understand why he thinks they are.

I can see of course that there's a wider agenda than sports and single sex spaces, but doesn't that make it more important to deal with these issues in a way that satisfies a wider public than have been satisfied by them? Because treating these matters as not being up for debate hasn't worked.

Abernathy wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2026 5:17 pm I’ve just read this piece. Maybe I’ve missed something, but it looks like it can be summarised thus :

- Trans-gender kid grows up, experiencing prejudice, hatred, trauma, and wilful misunderstanding.

- Trans -gender kid finds inordinate comfort in the works of J.K. Rowling. Becomes something of a mega fan.

- Trans-gender kid, now grown-up and successful, says that she is now in great pain because JK Rowling, the author of the stories she loves, because Ms. Rowling allegedly considers her “not valid” .

She does not elaborate on what exactly Rowling has said or done to cause her such pain, and explicitly refuses to argue logically against any of the, in my view extremely cogent , points that Rowling makes in her essay on the subject of a couple of years ago. It’s almost as if for her it is taken as read that Rowling is a malevolent TERF.

I can’t see the point of this. Lord knows what Jo Rowling makes of it.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jk-rowli ... 1P_b_4BK4g

Rowling's embraced the Terf label, hasn't she?

Rowling very much is, now, a malevolent TERF by any standards. She actively seeks out conflict online, she makes no effort to educate herself on the facts of matters before weighing in - even when these directly contradict her claimed stance (for example, with the female Olympic boxers she decided were men), she is abusive as a starting point in such conversations, and has made it clear she uses the proceeds from her work to fund groups and causes that seek to roll back and erase trans rights, and further that she sees any purchase of her work or related products to be an endorsement of her position.

I’d recommend the 2-part Origin Story podcast on her, which covers how her public position has shifted quite dramatically from even a few years ago, and how her actions are very hard to interpret in any way other than outright hostility.

She ,and Linehan, come to that, are great examples of how doubling down without thinking can lead to a one-way street from which there is no escape.

The main anti-trans argument of "What if a male sexual predator claims to be a woman in order to enter female-only spaces and sexually assault someone?", aside from taking an extreme situation and portraying it as much more frequent than it is, misses the points that a) men can (and do) do that already, and b) it reduces sexuality to a stereotype - do you conform to my (or society's) mental image of a man or a woman?

A shame Rowling has gone down that route, as she was a great supporter of progressive causes for a long time.

The main argument is that very many women don't want to share spaces with trans women. They may or may not fear sexual assault, that's a separate issue. It's the objection on principle to sharing the space.

I can't see how this can be resolved for public spaces, though I'm interested that the Corporation of London (which presumably isn't short of credible lawyers) think they've found a way to resolve it.

Cubicles and locks on doors.

If women's changing rooms are anything like men's, there'll be an open plan area, open showers.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 3:17 pm Here's another person who might reflect on Macleod's words. One minute you're protecting women's sports, the next you're monitoring Police office at Pride marches.

It said many things but the eradication of trans women I don’t think the ECHR covered that as much as this lot hope it did.

"Good weekend?"

"Yes, I watched a parade to see if the police were wearing badges."

Also the Trans flag covers both trans men and trans women, the ruling didn’t seem to even think about one of those groups.

JK Rowling claims Amnesty 'don't believe women deserve rights' in report row

Rowling wrote on social media: "It appears that (as many of us have suspected for years) Amnesty believes certain kinds of humans don’t deserve rights: women, girls and those who are proudly same-sex attracted. I hope donors from those groups are taking note."

The sad thing is that her fan club will actually believe this.

Judging by the uniforms being warn in the photograph the officers are Police Community Support Officers so they would be expected to work closely with local community groups.

Sarah Phillimore seems to have plenty of time on her hands. She's posting people being nasty about Anne Widdicombe's death, who are I assume supporters of trans rights. However tasteless and ill informed they are- for instance Widdecombe never demanded women in labour be handcuffed- they are at least being nasty about a particular individual, not about a whole group. Does she think others can't find nasty gender critical people being nasty? What's the point?

Amnesty take down 'anti-rights' report amid gender critical backlash

Just once, I'd like to see someone stand up to Rowling's lawyers. That even Amnesty won't is a huge disappointment.

Self-styled defender of (appropriately feminine-looking) women's rights Rowling is also now upskirting trans women, posting the photos online, and justifying it by saying that they're asking for it if they choose to dress that way.

I wonder how many insufficiently male gaze pretty cis women she's accidentally done this to already and kept quiet about.

I wonder how even if it was a gender non-conforming man, she justifies this as okay in her own head. Other than by the idea that skirts are for women, and completely missing the fact that once again, she's reducing womanhood to a few body parts or the fact that we aren't allowed to wear whatever we like, after all.