“She Somehow Became A Death Eater”: J.K. Rowling Mocks Pedro Pascal Following Claims He ‘Shut Her Down’

Mel in Georgia

Mel in Georgia

Community Member • points

posts

comments

upvotes

FollowUnfollow

Premium

Premium user. Get details.

I still feel that the miniscule minority of people who choose to transition does not threaten women. For those who are trans women, welcome to the sisterhood. For those who are trans men, teach other men tolerance and respect for women. Rowling can continue to play victim, and now victor, but to me she's still mostly wrong.

1/2 Mel in Georgia: I fear that your ideas about Rowling have been informed by the misogynist lies and hatred she's attracted. You talk about Rowling "playing the victim", yet she never has. Moreover, Rowling has explicitly rejected the idea that she's a victim. "I haven’t written this essay in the hope that anybody will get out a violin for me, not even a teeny-weeny one. I’m extraordinarily fortunate; I’m a survivor, certainly not a victim. I’ve only mentioned my past because, like every other human being on this planet, I have a complex backstory, which shapes my fears, my interests and my opinions." https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-s*x-and-gender-issues/

2/2 Mel in Georgia: Rowling's pleasure in victory, such as it is, is that she prevailed against those who hate her, who have been subjecting her to a constant barrage of harassment, rápe and death threats, and spreading hate-mongering lies about her ever since she first dared suggest that trans women aren't identical to cis women. Rowling is a trans rights ally, like all gender critical feminists. https://thecritic.co.uk/the-curse-of-terf/

🤣🤣🤣 Of course the downvoters downvoted that comment. Downvotes on BP exist to hide posts from view. I assume some Rowling-haters want that remark hidden because they can't bear seeing anyone suggest that the person they most despise might not actually be evil and wicked. 😉

Re: 1/2 Mel in Georgia and the BP censorbot. The mangled url element should read s-e-x.

Mel in Georgia: you claim that Rowling has "compiled a lot of conflicting "research" and anecdotal stories to support her claims that allowing trans women into "safe female spaces" is threatening". I've read her words and cannot identify what you're talking about. Can you explain? I am certain you're wrong when you say she "sees evil men in dresses everywhere" - that sounds like something made up by a Rowling-hater.

Mel in Georgia: you say of Rowling "She feels unfairly attacked by internet trolls and communities". Er, actually, the constant barrage of rápe threats and death threats is in fact objectively criminal harassment. It's not about "fairness" - although it isn't right that people keep spreading vicious lies about her, and constantly use hate speech to whip up more threats. Read about the terrifying reality for women such as Rowling: https://thecritic.co.uk/the-curse-of-terf/

3/3 https://transactual.org.uk/equality-act/ - trans rights. https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf (definition of "woman" in the Equality Act 2010). https://thecritic.co.uk/the-curse-of-terf/. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn9vr4vjzgqo (Prof Kathleen Stock, hounded from her job by trans rights extremists). https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jun/11/uk-equalities-watchdog-transgender-people-may-be-asked-about-gender-status-in-workplace "[...] almost all the abuse in the debate came from transgender people and their backers" https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/isla-bryson-demands-moved-back-35393824 - Isla Bryson. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jun/06/ehrc-commissioner-calls-for-trans-people-to-accept-reduced-rights-after-years-of-lies 'Amnesty: “EHRC has the duty to uphold the rights of everyone.... concerned it is failing to do so and is ... pitting the rights of women and trans people against each other.” '

And there we go again - my comment 3/3 has also collected downvotes. Downvotes on BP exist to hide posts from view. Except this post was basically just links. What sort of person wants to hide links to relevant information? The sort of person who can't cope with reasoned discussion and - in this case - just wants to make sure people remain ignorant and keep on hating... 😁🤣🤣

More downvotes - downvotes on BP existing to get posts hidden. It seems I've angered the usual snowflakes who lack the ability to engage in rational discussion and also can't cope with the truth being told on this subject. 🤣🤣🤣

@Forrest Hobbs thank you for so eloquently protecting a woman's right to her opinion without getting such extreme HATE from trans supporters. They accuse JKR of hate when that is all I see from them. They are showing hate by downvoting you.

Oh, so not agreeing is now hate? Small wonder that terfs think they are being attacked, hated, and poor JK being treated so horribly. Anything that's not totally obeying your opinion is "hate". Well, then yes, people hate you. Because we are thinking Human beings and don't just bow to you or her.

1/2 Earonn, you have mistaken my meaning. Disagreement is not hate. That is not what I am talking about. What I'm talking about is the enormous amount of hatred directed towards anyone who disputes the idea that trans women are identical to cis women. According to the extremist hatemongers I'm referring to, if you disagree with them, you are evil and wicked and deserve death and r@pe etc. Professor Kathleen Stock had so much abuse from trans rights extremists harassing her at work including daily threats she had to leave her university job - and sometimes has to hire private security guards to protect her from trans rights extremists. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn9vr4vjzgqo

2/2 Earonn: you used the word "terf". I'd appreciate you explaining why, given that it's misogynist hate speech "intended to dehumanise dissenting women" as explained here: https://thecritic.co.uk/the-curse-of-terf/

1/2 superfluous: the big problem from my point of view is that Rowling's opinions are carefully considered and nuanced - but because she doesn't accept the idea that trans women are identical to cis women, she gets a pile-on of hatred which disregards the actual ideas Rowling has actually expressed. The haters just lie about her to whip up further hatred, attribute views to her that she has actively opposed. I suspect Pedro Pascal is one of those who have fallen for the lies.

2/2 superfluous: Rowling's basic objection to the idea that trans women should be considered identical to cis women is this: here in the UK, one can get a gender recognition certificate by living in a particular gender for two years and persuading a doctor that you intend to do so permanently. So that means a man could get classified as a women basically by dressing in drag for 24 months - no need for hormones, surgery, or anything like that. And that means someone who is 100% male except for their clothes and hairstyle could legally enforce access to spaces that are supposed to protect the safety and dignity of women by excluding men - except that here in the UK, the Supreme Court has ruled the law permits (but doesn't require) the exclusion of trans women from women's spaces when that is a proportionate measure to achieve a legitimate aim bearing in mind the UK's legal ban on discriminating against trans people. The fine details are very important but unfortunately widely disregarded-including the point that this is about UK law.

1/2 Earonn, you've used misogynist hate speech in this thread: the word "terf". Rowling is never that nasty to anyone. I have however read thousands of words of hate-mongering lies about J K Rowling - people do hate her, they spew their hatred towards her on the Web in long articles about how vile and nasty they think she is. People on BP provided the links to some of that hate speech in an attempt to prove that Rowling is transphobic. But all they proved was that some people hate Rowling and lie about her. Show me, if you can, one single example of J K Rowling expressing transphobic opinions - I bet you can't, because she's never written or said anything transphobic.

2/2 Earonn: in case you missed the link about the hate speech word "terf" https://thecritic.co.uk/the-curse-of-terf/ "there is, for the woman on the receiving end [of TERF], an accompanying implied threat of violence whenever it is used. Sticks and stones will break her bones, and if it comes with the name-calling of “TERF” then it is intended to do more than hurt feelings; it is intended to shut women up about their rights for good. "

Roni Stone

Roni Stone

Community Member • points

posts

comments

upvotes

FollowUnfollow

Premium

Premium user. Get details.

And the image of Rowling's own twitter post: Rowling-68...nsored.jpg And just in case you are going to try to convince me that Rowling meant cis-men rather than trans-women - don't. She is a danger in her seemingly untouchable high tower.

She meant what she said - men, a category that under the Equalities Act includes men who identify as women. Calling them trans women does not alter their séx.

Roni Stone

Roni Stone

Community Member • points

posts

comments

upvotes

FollowUnfollow

Premium

Premium user. Get details.

Apparently BP is not liking a certain word in the above image and won't let it be shown. Here is an image without said offensive, censored word. Rowling-68...e4d672.jpg

1/2 Roni Stone: that tweet says nothing about trans people. Given that Rowling has explained she considers the vast majority of trans women to be no threat to anyone, I assume that in the tweet you provided Rowling was talking about predatory men regardless of their gender identity. I also assume the context would support my guess, but you didn't supply any context to show what she was talking about. Please do provide the context - without it, that tweet proves nothing. I did try following links, but none of the reports I found about the tweet in question contain a link to the original discussion or provide the context. That suggests dishonest reporting - unsurprising, because dishonest reporting is what the Daily Express does, along with most other British tabloids. Photographing trans women and using that to "out" their trans status is a criminal offence in the UK. In the UK, it's also a criminal offence to encourage people to commit a crime. If she has done what you suggest (and I've yet to see evidence that she has), I think she could be charged with a criminal offence and prosecuted. Rowling knows all that, which is another reason for disbelieving your claim she was encouraging the "outing" of trans women.

2/2 Roni Stone: you call Rowling "a danger". What do you mean by that? I don't see that she's posing any risk to anyone. Can you explain?

Roni Stone: you've linked to a news story in a dishonest downmarket tabloid newspaper which makes allegations against Rowling. That proves nothing. Please, where is the Twitter thread? I've not got a Twitter account myself.

You're wrong about public toilets. Admission to public single-séx facilities - including toilets - is based on biological séx, not gender identity. This is because they are included in the laws covering séx-based rights. It turns out that what gender critical feminists have been saying was right all along: if trans women (by law, biological males) are allowed to use women's facilities then they are no longer single-séx but instead become uniséx and would therefore be open to all males. https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/interim-update-practical-implications-uk-supreme-court-judgment

1/2 UKGrandad the EHRC has issued interim guidance (which has no legal force) on the subject. It was issued without any consultation and it is being challenged. The Chair of the EHRC has admitted that it's impossible and unlawful to police this particular bit of guidance. If you've got a rule which cannot be policed or enforced, then it is obviously a bad rule. Also, it's against the law to "out" a trans person against their will, so trans people cannot be required to use public loos corresponding to their biological séx. Taken together, we have a situation where an unenforceable hastily made decision by the EHRC would deny trans people access to any single séx public toilet facilities - that seems against the law too, because you're not allowed to discriminate against trans people. The EHRC guidance you're talking about is clearly Just Plain Wrong. I'm pretty sure the idea that letting trans women into ladies loos also means permitting cis men into ladies loos will be shown to be wrong too - if not, hopefully we'll get some new legislation to sort things out. Right now, things are a dreadful mess.

Men going into women's public toilets was illegal before trans activism raised it's ugly head and is still illegal now. It is considered unlawful trespass. And it isn't illegal to call a man a man if he is trespassing in protected single-séx spaces. Allowing one group of men - regardless of gender identity - entry into women's single-séx spaces does invalidate it as a single-séx space, and accordingly, you cannot allow *some* men into what would then be a uniséx facility and exclude others. To slightly rephrased a question you have asked others here without reply; how are you going to define a single-séx space that admits some members of the opposite séx but continues to exclude others? Or, what definition of 'women' can you give that also includes some but not all men?

"Men going into women's public toilets was illegal before trans activism raised it's ugly head and is still illegal now." - really? I've not heard that before. Do you have a source for that? As I suggested elsewhere, I think this whole business is going to be sorted out by courts setting precedents in response to the legal challenges currently being prepared - some could up going all the way to the Supreme Court. I think it's entirely possible that some of those precedents will end up deciding that actually yes you can define a space/service/whatnot as being exclusively for "cis and trans women" or "cis and trans men". I don't see that the current law forbids that for all that it doesn't explicitly state you can do it that way. Meanwhile: I know I'm not a lawyer. How about you? 😁😉

2/2 UKGrandad: by the way, I'm married to a feminist who takes the view that she shouldn't be required to share a women's changing room with male bodies but doesn't understand why there's all this fuss about letting trans women into ladies loos because it's absolutely not a problem for anyone. My wife has fumed at Baroness Falkner - who, by the way, is going to be replaced at the EHRC by Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson. Hopefully the new boss will prove more sane. https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/news/update-appointment-new-ehrc-chair

But ladies' loos are just one part of the myriad single-séx spaces that have been and are still being fought over. Does your wife think that it's OK to exclude female-identifying males from just some women's facilities but welcome them into others? Because that cannot be workable. There's no way of saying 'OK, you're classed as women in these spaces but not in those spaces' when they are all designated single-séx spaces. All that would achieve is increased demands for access based on the illogic of allowing them into *some* protected spaces but not all. Does that make sense?

UKGrandad: I think all this talk about ladies loos is distracting from the important issues. There never used to be any sort of issue with trans women using the ladies loos. Anyway, yes my wife does think that trans women should be excluded from some women's spaces/groups/events and included in others. Why shouldn't that be workable? If there's a risk of harming the dignity and safety of biological women, then you 're allowed to exclude trans women if doing so is a proportionate measure (and for other legitimate aims). In other cases, inclusion should be the default setting. I'd like to see some sort of checklist and flowchart affair from the EHRC setting out the steps one should follow in making such decisions - that way, there'd be a standard method available to all and if anyone argued with your decision, you could show how your decision was valid based on the standard guidance. Where trans women should go if excluded from women's spaces is unsolved - that needs dealing with.

It wouldn't be workable for the reasons I gave above. Gender identity isn't a factor in single-séx spaces, and if *some* men are allowed access then there is no reason in law to deny *all* men access because the space will be by definition mixed séx. And even if the law were to allow female-identifying males equal rights to access *some* single-séx spaces then there would be no reason to lawfully exclude them from *any* single-séx space. We've already seen the issue of demands for access to everything: when groups such as the LGB alliance formed trans activists were demanding to be included, despite there being many LGBTetc. groups that do welcome them. So partial inclusion (as in some spaces but not all) will never be acceptable to them. They've made that very clear. For good or for ill, they need to accept the reality that their biological s*x means that some things are off limit to them.

UKGrandad, I understand your reasoning but I'm not at all sure you're right. We've got a new clarification of the definition of "woman" in the Equality Act 2010 - which, remember, also prevents discrimination against trans people. We've also got the reality of gender recognition certificates. There are a whole load of precedents that are going to be set in court before this is all sorted out. Me? I don't see why a gender recognition certificate shouldn't be used as a deciding factor in who gets access to female spaces (etc) - if that's "okay by the cis women/men" if you see what I mean. The law is quite flexible enough to cope with four or more categories - cis men, cis women, trans men, trans women - the latter pair denoted by gender recognition certificates rather than self-identification. I don't give a dámn about the trans rights extremists. Partial inclusion (proportionate measure, legitimate aim, all that) is the reality and they're just going to have to grow up and deal with it.

But they won't grow up and deal with it because they've already proven that they refuse to be limited, either by biology or by law. Single-séx facilities worked perfectly well before all the nonsense started and they can continue to work perfectly well now that the original intent of the wording of the Equality Act has been confirmed. The transgender contingent are going to have to accept that they were making demands based on lies and misinformation. They've been told 'no' and they're just going to have to deal with it. It will be interesting to see just how many of them decide decide to return to being men again because it's just no fun any more now they're not allowed to push women around. I'm sure there'll be a final round of entitled male rage at not getting their own way, but this too will pass and the last 15 years or-so will finally be seen for what it was - a period of fashionable nonsense.

UKGrandad: but the trans rights extremists will inevitably grow older (assuming they live that long) - they'll mostly end up developing more reasonable attitudes. It's a thing - I don't know about you, but I was a right twérp when I was younger (still am in some respects). Transgender women (in the modern sense) predate my birth and in case you've not noticed, I'm not at all young (grr - I need reading glasses these days, which is totally unreasonable). The only "fashionable nonsense" that's going to vanish is this recent insistence that "trans women are identical to cis women". Give it 20-30 years and some sort of workable compromise position will evolve. No, I have absolutely no clue what that'll be - but mostly, most people want to get on with other people, so it'll work out somehow. 🤷

(FFS! WHY!!! BP, why does your censorbot clobber the word "twérp"? I mean, what? 🤯🤣)

And it's a mess precisely because trans activists made it a mess by insisting on going where they were not entitled to be - women's protected single-séx spaces. If trans men are now having problems then they only have their trans 'sisters' to blame. Single-séx facilities worked perfectly well for many years before trans activists decided to listen to the idiots at Stonewall and The Good Law Project about what their rights were. Those two organisations lied to them and now there's a real mess to sort out, and the buggers are trying to lay the blame on gender critical feminists for standing up to bullying men.

UKGrandad: I think that's a bit unfair. For one thing, trans women have been using ladies public loos for longer than I've been alive without trouble that I've heard about. The current EHRC interim guidance was issued in response to the recent Supreme Court ruling, which was made due to a challenge to the Scottish government's decision that a female gender recognition certificate made a person a woman from the point of view of legislation intended to increase the representation of women on public boards. Now, the Scottish Government's decision might well have been down to the troublemakers at Stonewall - but just because that organization had been taken over by nutters doesn't say anything about the majority of trans women. It'll get sorted out eventually once people start to use a bit of good faith, compassion, and common sense. Oh - dámn, that'll be when hell's frozen over. 😬

There are claims that trans women have been using ladies loos but there is no evidence that the claim is true. There has been a lot of rewriting history that doesn't bear scrutiny, as you well know because you were recently talking about the retrotransing of historically important women. Regardless of the specifics of the Supreme Court Case, the challenge to the Scottish Government's ruling centred on what is meant by the words 'séx', 'men' and 'women' in the Equality Act. The Court stated what everybody has always known: séx is biological, women are biological females and men are biological males. That means that by law, any single-séx facility covered by the Equality Act is for the use of the séx to which it is allocated. Anybody who claims to need to wait for the EHRC to issue proper guidelines is being willfully obtuse, because the law is very clear on the matter.

UKGrandad, I've read letters to the press from trans women who say they've been using ladies loos for decades without problems, but now they're worried. Nothing to do with re-writing history. It seems such an obvious thing I can't imagine why anyone would question it - *of course* trans women have been using the ladies, because 1) why not? and 2) where else would they go? You walk in, you go into the cubicle, you shut the door - no worries for anyone. As for this whole business about single séx facilities: the Equality Act doesn't define any such thing. It just defines the basis on which it is legitimate to provide facilities which are permitted (but not required) to discriminate on the basis of séx. There are court challenges being prepared. Precedents are going to be set. No-one knows how it's going to work out, not yet. I don't think the picture is as straightforward as you present it.

Why not? Because the vast majority of them are clearly men who do not 'pass' as women. Where else would they go? The men's room. Any liar can write letters to the press claiming anything in defence of an ideology or nonsensical idea. People write letters to the press about seeing UFOs: do we accept those as truth?

1/2 UKGrandad: here's my view. Consider a sincere trans woman with a gender recognition certificate who genuinely feels that they're a woman. Obliging them to use the gents will make them feel uncomfortable at least and exposes them to risk of harm. So: can such people be accommodated in the ladies' loos? Their presence would pose no threat to the safety and dignity of cis women. Women who accept the idea that trans woman "are" women won't be bothered. If - after consultation - it turns out that most women would tolerate trans women in ladies' loos, it seems reasonable to let them in.

2/2 UKGrandad: my thinking is that even if you don't accept the claim that "trans women are women", you can understand that trans women *do* think they are women - so, naturally, such a person just wants to use the ladies' loos like any other woman. Letting trans women in isn't remotely comparable to letting ordinary blokes into the ladies' loos - because even if it's obvious that they're trans women, it's also obvious that they themselves think they're women so they're just using the facilities for the intended purpose in the normal way. Consultation is needed to gauge the level of acceptance of this idea among women, and it might also take a change in the law, but I don't see why it should be terribly controversial.

It doesn't matter that they think they're women: it's a personal belief that they have no right to impose on others or to expect others to believe. And how do you tell the 'sincere' from the fetishists, fantasists and cross-dressers? As for 'obliging them to use the gents will make them feel uncomfortable at least and exposes them to risk of harm': where's the consideration for the women who would be forced to accommodate them? What about their comfort and safety? Trans women are still men and so still pose the same potential dangers to women -more, in fact, as the stats on séx offenders in the UK prison system show. As for consultation - why bother. It's not as though the trans advocates consulted women before barging in on their spaces, is it? They weren't invited in so they can't complain at being told to leave.

UKGrandad, my consideration for cis women was expressed thus: "Consultation is needed to gauge the level of acceptance of this idea among women" I also specified my suggestion as applying to those holding a gender recognition certificate - admittedly impossible to police or enforce. As for the "risk" business: abusers are going to abuse. Most people aren't abusers. In any case: this isn't about what you or I think about my suggestion: in my view, the matter should be considered by women and the opinion of women should decide the matter. Perfection is unattainable, but we can always make things a little better if we try.

And my response to the first point is that trans women deserve the same considerations as they gave women when they decided they had the right to just go wherever they wanted, i.e. none whatsoever. They quite literally made up the rights that they claimed were their's, so pardon my lack of sympathy now that they're complaining about losing rights they didn't have to begin with.

Part 2: a trans woman who has had the full surgery and is taking female hormones doesn't pose the same risk to women as unmodified men do. Aggression is lowered, and the anatomy of rápe no longer exists. However: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-45408197

And how are women to know if the transwomen walking into their spaces are surgically transitioned or completely intact? Despite the fever-dream lies from trans and their allies (enablers?) nobody from the gender critical side has suggested genital checks, and GRCs prove nothing except that the holder has socially transitioned, i.e. has lived 'as a woman' (whatever that means, as all it implies is that 'woman' is nothing more than a performance) for a certain length of time - or has at least claimed to have done so; nobody watches over them 24/7 during the qualifying period. No, it's unworkable, and it's ridiculous to try bending reality to accommodate something that exists only in the minds of some men who, for a variety of reasons, claim that they are women. For all your attempts at accommodating them you are skipping over the most salient fact - they are men, regardless of what they believe or claim to believe, and regardless of what they've had chopped and altered.

PS to UKGrandad: thing is, UFOs are real. There's any number of unexplained things that have been spotted in the sky. The official name these days is "unexplained aerial phenomena" - it seems likely that at least some are weird electrical activity or similar. Alien spacecraft? I doubt it. 😉