121 Comments
User's avatar
Robert King's avatar

What happened? Amazingly she stayed sane under an onslaught that would break lesser people. Why are YOU so obsessed with this?

Expand full comment
Gary Garison's avatar

"What about an existential threat such as climate change? What about international conflicts? What about socio-economic equality? Rowling’s cause is an important one, yet it has multiple competitors and some of them are more important."

The "Why do you even care? How does it even affect you? Don't you have better things to think about?" brand of trans boilerplate.

Coming to terms about the nature of reality and the nature of knowledge is the the prerequisite for all those other "more important" causes.

Expand full comment
Brigid LaSage's avatar

Exactly. That anything could be "more important" than the existence of women does not compute to me, a woman, and why should it? JKR is an unapologetic champion of women’s rights. So? Did anybody ask MLK to focus on nuclear disarmament instead of civil rights when his people were being subjected to segregation? Too many insist on waving at the threat of gender ideology. I'm grateful to those who stay focused and vigilant.

Expand full comment
LAV O’Reilly's avatar

Correction, Joanne Rowling uses one group of women to terrorise women and children. She is NOT a champion of women’s rights. She made her money from the very people she now despises. If you’re selective in support of women and children, you’re not a feminist, you’re upholding the patriarchy

Expand full comment
Jenny Ruth's Just the Business's avatar

You are deluded. JK is a champion of the rights of women and children and none of your spiteful hate can change that. She is the one who has been terrorized, as have be the poor children poisoned and mutilated by “gender-affirming healthcare.” Actual child abuse.

Expand full comment
Gillian Palmer's avatar

Please could you explain what you mean? I have read this a couple of times and I am not sure to which sets and subsets you refer?

Expand full comment
Ian Morrison's avatar

It’s a word salad. It has no meaning because it comes from hysteria rather than thought.

Expand full comment
Jeremy Wickins's avatar

"Transwomen"=trans identifying men=men. All of them, all day, every day. They are no type of woman. I hope that helps to clarify your thoughts.

Expand full comment
Julia's avatar

autogenephiles, mostly, porn addicted pervs

Expand full comment
Citternist's avatar

I think (?) the commenter is saying the “one group of women” she terrorizes are trans “women”? That JKR made her money terrorizing trans people? idk, any wiffs of transphobia in the Harry Potter books (how she became rich)?

Expand full comment
DaveW's avatar

You seem to support neither Ms Rowling nor Ms LaSage above. From this I gather that you are also selective in [your] support of women and therefore…

Expand full comment
Lacy's avatar

Exactly I can't trust anyone who can't acknowledge something as simple to reality as there are IMPORTANT differences between males and females. no matter how they dress or what drugs they take or what surgeries they have. No one can change sex.

Expand full comment
Kat Highsmith's avatar

Liberalism does not include letting men with fetishes force their lies onto society and be put into women's prisons after committing crimes.

Rowling has realize this cannot be accommodated in any way due to the reality of male nature.

That cannot be reconciled with mealy-mouthed appeals to being a liberal.

Academia is full of cowards and idiots. Now they want to pretend like they're the brave ones.

Expand full comment
Oli Blah blah's avatar

Tone policing reality. How leftist of you 😂

Calling a man a man is no insult, even if the called-out cries crocodile tears. It seems to me that JKR’s field of fucks to be cultivated for narcissistic, abusive men is now barren.

The sooner you grasp that there can be no compromise with a destructive, dangerous ideology the sooner you’ll actually be defending liberalism, instead of helping to kick it to death.

Expand full comment
Grumpy Dad's avatar

I feel Rowling has gotten a bit more acerbic... But is calling a male a man really "mean-spirited?"

I'm not sure why activism in one area demands activism in another -- doesn't that just lead to more tribalism rather than critical thinking on each issue?

Lastly, Rowlings essay gives a "no compromise" vibe. This makes her seem like a zealot perhaps. But is this born out of true zealotry or just that compromise -- at least on the men in women's spaces issue -- may not be functionally possible? Like is California's solution of putting extra people on the podium when a transgirl finishes in the top three really a good solution? Or maybe in community rec centers men who identify as women get use the women's showers on MWF, and must use men's TTS, and they trade off Sundays? Surely this is not workable.

Expand full comment
S. MacPavel's avatar

I think all the rape threats got to her

Expand full comment
Cory Blunk's avatar

I think this is a key point that too often gets hand waved.

Expand full comment
Margaret Bluman's avatar

The Path Not Taken

2 Comments

Write a comment...

⭠ Return to thread

Margaret Bluman

2h

Ah Mr Prosser. Clearly you have no skin in this game. We have all hardened a little as each small gain has resulted in far fewer societal and structural changes than we would have anticipated.

When the unamguous Supreme Court Ruling was delivered, we thought we could see clear water ahead. But look at how our cowardly government has sat on the EHCR advice amd allowed organisations and individuals to squirm and buck at the law's requirements.

The fact that the puberty blockers so called trial is going ahead, instead of gathering and analysing all the already existing evidence will be a blot on this government's reputation in years to come when its results prove nothing that isn't already known.

Then look at today's judgement on the Sandie Peggie case which will, like so many other cases, in all likelihood have to go to appeal for clarity on the discrimination element.

And don't get me started on the universities, most of whom still think they are above the law. As Naomi Cunningham said in an interview a couple of weeks ago, she is going to be very busy for quite some time to come.

Like (2)

Reply (1)

Share

Thomas Prosser

2h

Edited

Thanks for your comment Margaret. However, technical problems mean I had to put up a new version of this post: https://www.thepathnottaken.net/p/what-happened-to-jk-rowling-bc0

Could I ask you to cut and paste your comment there? I'd rather collect all the comments in one place. I'll respond to you then. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Like

Reply

Share

© 2025 Thomas Prosser · Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice

Start your Substack

Get the app

Substack is the home for great culture

Expand full comment
Thomas Prosser's avatar

Thanks Margaret. I'm very happy about many of these developments. Yet I think they would also have happened had J.K. Rowling stuck to her 2020 position.

Expand full comment
Kat Highsmith's avatar

She put a lot more on the line than you did.

There's no such thing as "transgender."

When the fraud completely collapses, you'll pretend like you always said that in the first place.

Expand full comment
Fading Light's avatar

Exactly. It's a fraud, from start to finish.

Better to salvage some self-respect now, and abandon the fraud.

Expand full comment
conor king's avatar

The UK High Court made clear the intent of the legislation as passed. It did not say that gender could not be written into legislation replacing or alongside sex. All up the the parliament. Which is a good place to be compared with the US where its Supreme Court does try at times to say what should be.

Expand full comment
AR's avatar

Guess what? It’s not complicated. Allowing “woman” to be defined by men with perversions necessarily leads to relegating women to 2nd class status. It is letting women know they don’t count and have no say in society. And it is exactly what has been happening for years and men like you still think women should be responsible for and self-subjugate to what goes on in a man’s head.

Expand full comment
Leslie Herrington's avatar

Sorry, but I think women being taken to court for calling a man a man and forced to get naked in front of men is more important than the causes you listed. Also, I suggest everyone try reading this and change out the word ‘transgender’ with the word ‘fetishistic transvestite’.

Expand full comment
Lacy's avatar

JK is correct now and she was correct then. Women should have the right to privacy and the right to fair sport. No mans feelings should change that.

Expand full comment
S. MacPavel's avatar

J. K. Rowling has done a lot of good.

Expand full comment
Nobody Bunchanumbers's avatar

So your biggest concern is that reality may have moved her away from some idealized concept of liberalism you have? And you think this is a problem with her and not your weird ideal?

Expand full comment
Sufeitzy's avatar

Evolved?

Many people have difficulty identifying men who are sex mimics, because the behavior evolved to be difficult to detect in humans by other humans - that’s the nature of deceptive traits in humans. Many humans can’t detect when another is lying to them, we evolved to be able to lie to each other.

Men mimic women to avoid male aggression, but also to deceive men and women in order to gain access to female groups under false pretenses.

They leverage female empathy to induce others to hide their state of being male, but have a bad habit of also leveraging empathy by deceit to replace women in female groups.

Rowling fairly consistently identifies male encroachment on female institutions as unacceptable, since it voids social boundaries evolved for the protection of women. Women assume shared life experience provides empathetic safety in female-only enclaves. With a male present, any male, that assumption of safety is taken without consent.

The protection of women’s honors, rights, safety and privileges from men imitating women is a fairly consistent position id say.

Expand full comment
Arrr Bee's avatar

I can totally understand her - when you notice a specific type of wrong and resist it, you run out of mental energy for the rest. She’s done amazing, courageous work, in the face of extreme hate and threats of violence from the oh-so “kind” progressive left. It isn’t her job to focus on more issues. It’s the work of progressives to be less horrible people than they manifestly are.

Expand full comment
Ian Morrison's avatar

She wrote something eminently reasonable, the TRAs launched into her immediately (I think they began by publishing an image of her front door) and since then her tone has toughened a bit, but her position has remained essentially unchanged. Did you feel the need simply to post something?

Expand full comment
Chris Smith's avatar

Rowling consistently supported the rights of women and girls. The trans community labeled her a TERF. I wouldn’t call her a radical feminist, but Rowling is definitely a feminist. Feminists have always been strongly on the side of liberals. They’ve never been conservative.

This topic is not split between liberals and conservatives. It has clearly split liberals. Yes, conservatives joined one side. That doesn’t make the liberals who agree with them on this one topic any less liberal. Those conservatives aren’t going to support Rowling on her other views of women.

Expand full comment
Alex Potts's avatar

It says something about your even-handedness that I noticed you were getting ratioed and my first thought was "well, he could be getting piled on from either side."

Expand full comment
Thomas Prosser's avatar

Hahaha! There's a fairly healthy ratio on X too - you can probably guess from which side!

Expand full comment
Jenny Ruth's Just the Business's avatar

Nope. He’s just another man thinking he has the right to dictate to a woman. Luckily, JK Rowling is far more powerful and will probably never be aware of his bleatings.

Expand full comment