J.K. Rowling Announces She’ll Now Be Using Her Wealth To Dismantle Trans People’s Rights Everywhere

As a woman, I find bigots and bullies a lot more worrying than people who've changed s*x. There's been an increase in attacks on butch lesbians due to a social climate that makes 'unfeminine' women fair game for violence since they might be trans. The far-right internationally have picked transphobia as another fave cause with Rowling as its patron saint.

Are you saying Rowling is a bully and a bigot? she hasnt said anything transphobic, she supports trans people, and does not support attacks against them. I don't agree with premise that butch women are being attacked because they may be trans. Another reason is they may being attacked because they don't fit in the gender stereotypes supported by the trans ideology.

Yes Rowling is a bully and a bigot. She CONSTANTLY attacks and doxxes trans people. She does not support trans people what the hell are you smoking? List ONE thing she has done to support trans people. Two cis women were forced out of the bathroom at the Liberty Hotel after a transphobe thought they were trans. Look it up. It's TERFs and transphobes kicking cis women out of bathrooms not "trans ideology" y'all are the bullies and you only hurt women. That's it.

Katelynjaew, please give an example of Rowling attacking or doxxing any trans person. Are you seriously claiming Rowling was involved in kicking cis women out any bathroom anywhere? Are you aware that "TERF" is a hate speech term of abuse for gender critical feminists invented by one particularly nasty hatemongering extremist trans rights activist? Are you aware that several gender critical feminists here in the UK have lost their jobs and receive daily death and r@pe threats from trans rights activists simply for asserting that trans women are different to biological women? Do you know that Rowling receives death and r@pe threats every day because of her support for women's rights? Can you name one single trans rights activist who has supported any of these women who have had their careers ruined and are under constant threat from the bullying trans rights activists who continue to threaten them every day?

The point about intersex people is that, by definition, have bodies that do not clearly fall into the binary categories of male and female - it's therefore not possible to clearly define them as belonging to one of those categories. Some of them are born with no reproductive tissue at all. "Estimates range from 0.018% (one in 5,500 births) to 1.7%" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

There is no 3rd gamete. Every DSD occurs in males or females. You're welcome.

There is no scientific definition which definitively categorises every human being as definitively male or female. You're welcome. 😁

I think that if people are going to engage in discussion, they should always do so in a courteous and reasonable fashion. I don't that the fact there's a censorbot in operation to placate the advertisers has any bearing on anything. (upvoted the downvote, because your remark was a courteous and reasonable one which shouldn't be hidden)

Okay now reread what you wrote with “race” in place of s e x.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, because what i am trying to say is, it is ok for everyone to have safe spaces, whether by s*x or race or other. So you either are agreeing with me on that or you are saying we shouldn't have safe spaces for anyone?

Neither races nor sexes should have safe spaces. Unless you're looking a for a white ethnostate there little N**i. Which isn't too far off from most TERFs. Trans women do not hurt women in bathrooms men do. And there are ALREADY laws in place preventing men from going into women's bathrooms. This has nothing to do with keeping women safe.

So people from ethic minorities shouldn't have spaces just for them? I think they should if they want, as a women, in vulnerable times, like when getting dressed, i would like a safe space away from men. Is that unreasonable? You say the transwomen don't hurt women in bathrooms, men do, but how can you tell the difference between a trans woman and a man who is lying?

You are either woefully unaware or lying. REDUXX . INFO

Sera, I think that's a false equivalence. There's no such thing as "race". Issues relating to perceptions of race can all be dealt with by integrating different cultures (etc). There is such a thing as biological s*x. It's a fact that men are more of a threat to women than either women are to women or women are to men - basically because men are, on average, much stronger and more aggressive than women. Women really do sometimes need safe spaces from which biological men are excluded. The issue is: how to protect biological women from abvse while *also* protecting trans people. The recent UK supreme court judgement permits but does not require segregation based on biological s*x (while emphasising the rights of trans people under equality legislation) - and also tells off parliament for not sorting the whole mess out with new legislation when they'd been asked to.

My above point is mostly that the current situation is deeply unsatisfactory and unless it's sorted out, is going to lead to trans people being harmed unless there's quick court action taken to assert established trans rights under the Equality Act 2010 to stop the current dreadful official guidelines being widely followed - they're obviously unlawful to my mind. In the long run? We have to discuss things reasonably, bearing in mind that there's no "one size fits all" solution to any of it.

We literally only have s*x-segregated sports because cisgender men cried hard about losing to women.

Sera, that is literally totally made up. I've read of one shooting sport where what you say is true (I can't find it right now). Contact sports are different and have always segregated women from men to protect women. Rugby football rules permit trans men to play against cis men in contact rugby (if they sign a disclaimer), but ban trans women playing against cis women. "the inclusion of trans people originally recorded male at birth in female contact rugby cannot be balanced against considerations of safety and fairness." https://www.englandrugby.com/the-rfu/policies/gender-participation

Then why aren't transwomen winning everything they try their hand at, if they're at such a massive advantage? Let's ignore the fact that trans-women typically have to jump through many more hoops than you're implying in order to be allowed to compete in women's sports.

Leaving aside the runners, swimmers, cyclists, weightlifters, boxers, etc. who *have* had victories over women, it doesn't actually matter one iota whether they're winning or not. What matters is that each female-identifying male in women's sport is taking a place intended for a female.

HECHEATED. ORG

Trans women are people who are born biologically male, Taz.

She's being called transphobic for her transphobic actions. For example: her advocacy/endoresments of transphobic figures and books; her tweets, like the "people who menstruate" tweet; that essay she wrote that many say perpetuates dangerous stereotypes of trans women, like trans women being a threat in bathrooms; her donations to anti-trans groups, and her celebration on Twitter over the UK Supreme Court ruling as a result. She brings all that with her to the discussion of transpeople in sports, so of course she's going to get called transphobic.

May I ask what transphobic figures she has endorsed? And what anti-trans groups she has donated to. As I have looked and cannot find any. The people who menstruate tweet was not transphobic, it was an opener to the conversation we are not allowed to have, the same with the essay. Which does not state trans women are a threat in bathrooms, but that it opens doors to predatory men, which cannot be denied. Are you referring the UK ruling that women will be defined by their biological s*x? Again not transphobic, trans women are not biological women, and in many situations that matters.

@Taz: Transphobic figures: Maya Forstater and Magdalen Berns. Anti-trans groups: For Women Scotland, Beira’s Place, MoMa Breastfeeding. Then there's the recently launched J.K. Rowling Women’s Fund. Regarding the tweet, flippancy is not a great way to open a conversation. The Supreme Court ruling is the start of a slippery slope that threatens trans people in a number of ways. That it has been so celebrated by gender-critical activists indicates as much. There is so much room to exclude trans people going forward, from equality and inclusion policies. The ruling enables active exclusion of trans people, and that is transphobic. As for predatory men - sure, that is an absolute problem that should be dealt with / prevented, but the essay subtly equates those men with trans women. The essay is very carefully worded so as not to be overtly transphobic - Rowling is an intelligent woman who's given most of her life to the written word, after all - but the transphobia is there.

DrBronxx: where is the evidence to back up your claim that any of the named people and organizations are anti-trans? I've looked them up and I can find absolutely no evidence that they are anti-trans.

Also, Dr Bronxx, could you address the issue that no gender-critical feminist has ever harassed, threatened, or abused a trans person; while trans rights activists created a hate speech word "TERF", which is deployed in order to identify a gender critical feminist deserving of harassment, including daily r@pe and murder threats? It's curious, isn't it? You talk about transphobia, but don't seem to mind women suffering harm from trans rights activists - at least, not if those women express gender critical views.

Dr Bronxx, perhaps you'd like to comment on the case of gender-critical academic Professor Kathleen Stock (a professor in the UK is a senior academic post). She was hounded from her university job by organized harassment from trans rights activists. She was falsely accused of transphobia for her views and resigned because of the constant threats and harassment she faced from trans rights activists on campus. Her employer was fined for failing to uphold academic freedom because it did nothing to protect her from the trans rights activists' hatemongering and harassment at her place of work. Gender critical feminists just want to maintain women's rights and never threaten or harass anyone - yet you say they're the haters? Your views, please? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn9vr4vjzgqo

Forrest Hobbs, on many points, you have given me a lot to think about - basically, if I don't refer to it here, I'm considering it, and most likely reassessing how I look at it. However, I do not appreciate your Whataboutism with Kathleen Stock to give the impression that I am perfectly fine with how she was treated. Of course I'm not. Not all gender-critical feminists are bad, just like not all trans activists are bad. Now, on to your most ridiculous statement: "no gender-critical feminist has ever harassed, threatened, or abused a trans person" - really? If you want to talk about no basis in reality, look no further. Now, the following is not whataboutism, but examples of how that statement is incorrect - look up Julia Serano, Grace Lavery and Aimee Knight. All of those people have experienced the harassment you're talking about. Also, if you can't see *at least* that Forstater's quotes are transphobic, I think that this discussion has reached an impasse.

Dr Bronxx: I read and understand. Thank you for thinking. I wasn't intending "whatboutism" regarding Kathleen Stock. I was asking for your views on the case, in part because Prof Stock has suffered far more harassment than almost all trans people and partly because I wanted to know what you thought about women's rights. I have looked up the people you mentioned and I can find no evidence that they have received any sort of harassment from gender critical feminists as you claim - can you link to any such examples? Please explain what it is about Forstater's remarks that counts as transphobic in your view - if you can't explain, maybe that means you're just wrong about her?

1/2 Forrest Hobbs, Ok, this is the last time I'm going to comment on this conversation, because I am no longer sure that you are taking part in this conversation in good faith. It is unfathomable to me how you would consider Maya Forstater's comment that the belief of "trans women are women" is a "literal delusion" to not be offensive to trans people, especially when it came from someone with absolutely no authority on the subject. The second part is, I find it very hard to believe that you looked up those figures and could not find any evidence *at all* of harassment from gender critical feminists. Thus, three possibilities came to mind: you're ability to use Google is severely lacking; you actually didn't look up any of them, or; you did look them up, saw what harassment they had received, and were ok with (which is not a million miles away from what you repeatedly seem to be accusing me of - I'm pro trans, so I must be anti-women's rights[?!]). Links in second comment.

DrBronxx: BP didn't notify me of your response. 1) Disagreeing with the trans extremist view that "trans women are identical to cis women" might upset some people, but it's no expression of hatred. I did look things up and found *nothing at all* to suggest that the abuse received by those you mentioned came from gender critical feminists - gender critical feminists all seem to be supportive of trans rights, just so long as that doesn't involve making it unlawful to exclude male bodies from safe spaces established for cis women and girls. 2) Gender critical feminists with a public profile receive constant harassment including death and r**e threats. Did you not notice that I didn't blame that criminal harassment on trans people, but rather on trans rights extremists?

So, Dr Bronxx: I suggest you consider a fourth possibility. I'm engaging in good faith, but you've not totally understood me. Women's rights defenders such as J K Rowling are pro-trans rights. There is no conflict - not until you get to the trans rights extremists who want to make it unlawful to establish safe spaces for women which exclude male bodies. That is where the women's rights defenders draw the line. The recent UK supreme court ruling has cleared that up: it's lawful to exclude male bodies from women's spaces where that is a proportionate measure in support of a legitimate aim. Understand this: exclusion is permitted, but not required. The UK Equality Act 2010 which states that (precise meaning sorted out by the Supreme Court) *also* states that trans gender identity is a "protected characteristic" - so you're not allowed to exclude trans people or discriminate against them - unless exclusion is a necessary and proportionate measure needed to protect someone else's protected rights. There is no conflict between trans rights and cis women's rights.

2/2 (https://juliaserano.medium.com/on-being-explicitly-named-in-a-violent-gender-critical-manifesto-e74ece76583d) (https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/02/28/trans-professor-grace-lavery-mother-twitter/) (https://www.gracelavery.org/my-words-to-joanne-rowling/) (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-45408197)

1/2 Regarding those links: https://juliaserano.... No evidence of gender critical feminists harassing anyone. It's full off falsehoods including a misrepresentation of a linked-to article which Serano falsely claims to name her, be a "manifesto", and "violent". It's a turgid essay that doesn't name her, isn't a manifesto, and isn't violent. Serano absurdly claims that the BBC is "relentless anti-trans" and links to a single unbiased factual report on the BBC by way of supposed evidence for her vexatious claim. Pinknews link: unfounded allegations of abuse from unspecified sources - no evidence supplied and nothing about gender critical feminists in any case. Third link: an essay hostile to J K Rowling. It contains nothing which demonstrates harassment from gender critical feminists to anyone. Fourth link: no sign of harassment from gender critical feminists. It's a report of a Ms Challenor who's unhappy because the Green Party leader met representatives of "Woman's Place UK" - an organization that opposes all forms of discrimination which says of Ms Challenor's claim that they are a "far-right transphobic hate group" that it "undermines the important discussion needed on this issue". None of those links contain or link to any evidence of gender critical feminists abusing trans people.

2/2: Dr Bronxx, the links you provided in an attempt to show evidence of gender critical feminists harassing trans people or trans rights activists did contain abuse. Every one of them contained abuse from trans rights activists directed at gender critical feminists - none the other way round. For example, Aimee Challenor calling a gender-critical women's support group a "far-right transphobic hate group" because they opposed the Scottish government's proposal to allow gender self-identification in law. Were you blind to this abuse directed at gender critical feminists? Or do you think that abusing gender critical feminists is acceptable?

"[...] almost all the abuse in the debate came from transgender people and their backers" said chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Kishwer Falkner. "“One of the things that one notices is that the vast majority of that part of our population, which is particularly the women and girls part … the vast majority of those people who felt disadvantaged or felt the law was not supporting them did so in a dignified, respectful manner, frequently using the last resort of a tribunal or a court,” she said." https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jun/11/uk-equalities-watchdog-transgender-people-may-be-asked-about-gender-status-in-workplace

Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Kishwer Falkner also said “Let’s be clear. This supreme court ruling only covers 8,464 people, the holders of GRCs [gender recognition certificates]. So in terms of changing things at all, those are the people affected. But the level of agitation that they can cause in terms of personal attacks, libellous attacks, defamation, where our family members are affected, our intimate family members have to think about how they are going about their place of work and so on, has got to stop.”

So: it seems that the impressive I've received from following links here is a fair one - it's the trans rights activists who dish out almost all the hate in the debate. I was wondering if I'd been missing something - I mean, people have been providing links which they say show the gender critical feminists are haters, but the only hate I've read on the linked pages is directed at gender critical feminists by trans rights activists. The chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission reports that, yes, actually, that's the general rule. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jun/11/uk-equalities-watchdog-transgender-people-may-be-asked-about-gender-status-in-workplace

1/2 Maya Forstater has stated that "trans women are men" and described the belief that "trans women are women" as a "literal delusion." (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/maya-forstater-rowling-trans-b1838137.html?). Magdalen Berns described trans activism as a "men's rights movment". She described trans women as "blackface actors", and stated, "Trans women are men", that "there is no such thing as a lesbian with a p***s" (https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Magdalen_Berns). FWS is a group founded by Berns, which challenged several acts of legislation, for example the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act in 2018, which had a goal of gender balance by including trans women with Gender Recognition Certificates (GRCs) in its definition of women (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/4/17/trans-women-arent-legally-women-what-the-uk-supreme-court-ruling-means?). 1/2

Yes, and? Forstater and Berns are taking a conventional gender critical line on things - nothing anti-trans there. For Women Scotland is a gender-critical organization which seeks to protect women's rights. You have presented no evidence of anti-trans anything - simply opinions which are gender-critical. I realise that some trans rights activists hate gender critical feminists - hence the abuse delivered to gender critical feminists by trans rights activists - but gender critical feminists don't hate trans people. Nor do they harass trans people despite all the harassment, threats, and other abuse they get from trans rights activists.

And while I'm at it: For Women Scotland did not challenge any legislation. It asked the UK Supreme Court to clarify the meaning of the word "woman" in existing legislation with the hope of that clarification supporting women's rights. Summaries of that judgement are often misleading. You can read the full judgement here: https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf

2/2 Biera's Place is a sexual violence support center for women, but it excludes transwomen. It was set up in part as a reaction to the trans-inclusive policies of the Edinburgh R**e Crisis Centre (ERCC), which is led by a transgender woman, Mridul Wadhwa. (https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/edinburgh-r**e-crisis-centre-condemned-gender-critical-worker-pzj35f0fj?). MoMa Breastfeeding, is a support charity that has been characterized as transphobic because of its explicit exclusion of transgender women from its services and staffing (https://www.thetimes.com/uk/healthcare/article/jk-rowling-women-only-breastfeeding-trans-jtplbfvtl?).

"Biera's Place is a sexual violence support center for women, but it excludes transwomen" - well, yes. It makes good sense to provide a safe space for women victims of violence which excludes people who are biologically men. That's not anti-trans either. Please explain why you think providing biological women (most of whom have been abused by men) a safe space away from biological men is anti-trans.

Very good. Now explain why services and groups for women should have to include males who identify as women. Explain how, exactly, knowing that humans cannot change séx is transphobic rather than a simple statement of biological fact. Explain why female-identifying males must be included in every single thing that is intended for women.

You have nothing. Zero facts. Nothing.

DrBronxx, I think you've misunderstood Rowling's essay. She wrote: "I believe the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable for all the reasons I’ve outlined." but then made the point that: "When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside." She's not bothered about trans women in public loos - she's worried about abvsive and predatory men. It's never simple.

More of Rowling's words from the same essay: "I happen to know a self-described transsexual woman who’s older than I am and wonderful. Although she’s open about her past as a gay man, I’ve always found it hard to think of her as anything other than a woman, and I believe (and certainly hope) she’s completely happy to have transitioned." I don't see how anyone can read that and think it's an expression of transphobia.

As for the quote about her acquaintance, that is the equivalent of "I can't be a racist/homophobe, I have a black/gay friend!" There is also a lot to nitpick about it, if you want to get into the weeds. Legitimate points that can also be legitimately argued against, leaving no conclusive answer

You can't see how that quote about opening the doors isn't problematic? I disagree that she's not worried about trans women in public toilets - she's *equating* trans women to predatory men. Her view here is considered by many to be stigmatizing. Not only that, it is unsupported, since studies show that trans-inclusive policies do not increase risk of a*****t in public restrooms (here's one: https://escholarship.org/content/qt4rs4n6h0/qt4rs4n6h0_noSplash_8740e92d7f24b6c89dbd4bd4d27fbbcb.pdf?t=qecca2). As for the first quote, there is an argument that saying "trans-identified people" instead of "trans people" implies skepticism about the legitimacy of transgender identities. The term she used is typically used in anti-trans rhetoric. The quote is also considered a "non-denial denial" - initially sounds reassuring, but subtly leaves room for doubt or fear. Lastly on that quote, it can be read as an attempt, after all the criticisms she said prior - to mitigate the coming backlash.

Dr Bronxx, you can and do think. Think a bit more. Rowling's words: "When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman " - that is not talking about trans people in general. Her view there is clear: "majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others but are vulnerable for all the reasons I’ve outlined". She's talking about a potential threat from predatory men exploiting trans rights, should such rights over-ride women's rights to safe spaces. Rowling's big worry was about the risk of the law being changed to make it unlawful to maintain safe spaces for cis women which exclude biological men (which could potentially include predatory men self-identifying as women to enable abvse) - she's not bothered about "legitimate" trans people.

DrBronxx, none of what you say about Rowling can be justified by my reading of her essay. To me, the love shines through - but all you can see is hate. You seem to have a very binary view of trans issues. To me, it's clear that Rowling wants to women AND trans people to be protected. And she views matters as non-binary: trans women/men aren't the same as biological women/men, and just because you have the label "trans" doesn't mean you're the same as anyone else with that label. She sees such matters as not clear-cut - it seems to me that the problem you've got with understanding her is that you want things to be binary, cut and dried, when they are not.

I don't think I have a binary view of trans issues at all. I find that to be a rather dismissive view of what I'm trying to sayI understand that there are nuances to the discussion, that it is complicated. And I feel that Rowling is insidiously taking advantage of that. I do not believe what you consider to be love shining through to be in earnest, and I believe that the reasons I have outlined show my reaons for that. I think this is the beginning of a slippery slope, and that transphobia in general will potentially become more overt. In recent years there has been alarming regression with regard to social issues that previously had been evolving, creating more thoughtful, considerate people. That regression is now happening to trans people as well, despite the fact that they were still a highly marginalized group to begin with.

DrBronxx, you haven't come up with any evidence to justify your opinions on Rowling etc. Given the absence of evidence for your opinions, I think they have no basis in reality. I've no idea what you mean by "Rowling is insidiously taking advantage of that" - I mean, what? "insidiously"? What do you mean? All Rowling wanted to do was make sure that it remained legal to maintain safe spaces and services for biological women. Can you explain why you think that this UK supreme court ruling - which emphasised that discriminating against trans people was and remains illegal in the UK - is going to increase transphobia?

Austzn, how about trying to explain in a reasoned fashion rather than (ahem) "projecting your insecurities onto others"? It really doesn't help.

Lest anyone misunderstand me: I see s*x and gender issues as multi-faceted. There are such things as biological men and biological women, clearly distinguished. Plenty of people are born outside those simple binary categories. Some people feel that their biological s*x doesn't match their gender existence in society - perfectly valid. Some such people "transition" to the other gender. But not all such transitions are the same. Trans women aren't biological women; trans men aren't biological men; all trans people are also different. It's messy and convoluted. I have questions but no answers.

I did, "...upset because you based part of your perspective of reality on a fabricated social binary and some people dare to choose something different." and I was replying to UKGrandad up there.

Austzn, that's just plain nonsense. It's one of the reasons I suggested you tried to explain things in a reasoned fashion. "upset because..": he's not upset, and you're incredibly arrogant to assume you've got any idea of his reasoning. "fabricated social binary" - nope, he's talking about biology, so your point about choosing something different is nonsense too. The entire thing is just wildly out to lunch - so, how about reasoning about the facts, rather than repeating a nonsensical personal attack based on 100% invalid assumptions?

Austzn,, do you really think that biological séx is a fabricated social binary? It's the foundation of every species that reproduces séxually. Male and female are not social fabrications. You are confusing the physical reality of séx with the abstract construct of gender.

The UK Supreme Court judgement stated: "It is striking that the EHRC has advised the UK Government of the problems created by its interpretation of the EA 2010, which include many of the matters which we have discussed above, and has called for legislation to amend the Act."

Not *strictly* emotional. One of the outcomes is that it is now *clearly* legal to prevent biological men who identify as women from accessing a space or service intended solely for women - provided that is a proportionate measure in pursuit of a legitimate aim. Previously, trans women had challenged exclusion from women-only spaces to the detriment of biological women - at least no more women should lose their jobs over such arguments. (end of part one)

Part 2: The issue now is how to accommodate trans people - which loos, changing rooms, hospital wards, etc., should trans people use? On the one hand, it's good that a man can't just get a gender recognition certificate as a female and have unrestricted access to women-only spaces (the Scottish government was proposing gender self-identification - just imagine!); but it's not good that nothing's been properly settled regarding trans people's access to s*x-segregated spaces. There are legitimate concerns, but at least women are permitted protection from predators such as Isla Bryson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isla_Bryson_case. Previously, a female-identifying male predator could make a discrimination claim under the Equality Act if they were denied access to protected spaces for women. At least one biological woman has lost her job because of complaining about having to share a women's changing room with a trans woman. (end of part 2)

Part 3: Basically, women are now protected against bogus discrimination claims by trans women, and it's clearly lawful to provide s*x-segregated services and spaces based on biological s*x. But while trans rights are protected in law under the Equality Act 2010, it's obvious that trans people are currently in limbo because in practice, no-one's worked out how to accommodate them. If you're trans in the UK right now, it's reasonable to be concerned (but not reasonable to go around bleating about how the gender critical lot hate you and want to erase you etc etc).