JK Rowling brave sisyphean fight against the ‘trans’ movement

As an American Thinker writer and editor, I try to add value to each of my essays. But sometimes, there’s no value to add because the original author says all that needs to be said—and even adds the necessary rebuttals.

Read more The venerable Oxford debating society has fallen to the barbarians

Such is the case with JK Rowling’s masterful exposé of the rhetorical fallacies that the so-called “transgender” movement has created to rebuff any criticism. In a sane society, of course, we’d recognize the “transgender” movement for what it is—namely, a problem of serious mental illness, whether pathetic or predatory—but our society insists that we listen to these arguments and counter them.

As Rowling shows, however, the target always shifts, so any argument is rebuffed as a specific act of transphobic cruelty. Before you read Rowling’s tweet, spend the painful 30 seconds it takes to watch this deeply disturbing man explain why you dare not deny his self-identity as a woman:

Continuing from where it was cut off:

…more convincing as a woman, you are promoting patriarchal beauty norms. If you admit to seeing an aggressive and possibly unbalanced man in this video, you’re saying all trans people are mentally ill predators. If you refuse to let him into female-only spaces, you’re removing his right to exist. If you suggest he could comfortably use male facilities, you secretly want him assaulted. If you refuse to call him ‘she’, you are guilty of unpardonable cruelty. If you’re a woman who wouldn’t want to share a locker room with him, or a man who wouldn’t want your daughter, sister or mother to get undressed in close proximity to him, you belong to the far-right. If you point out that there is no objective difference between his claim to be a woman and that of any other biological male claiming a trans identity, you are too stupid to understand the circular arguments explaining why he’s not really trans whereas other men who say they’re women are really trans.

If you’re righteous, you must argue that this man’s self-declared identity overrides any consideration of the safety and rights of females. To be godly, you must agree he’s as ‘valid’ as every other trans woman, because people are who they say they are. No matter what your eyes, ears and common sense are telling you, if you don’t want to end up on the wrong side of history, you must pretend to believe that this angry, intimidating man is actually a vulnerable, oppressed woman.

Rowling also stuck around in the comments to rebut two challenges to her statement, with each rebuttal offering a masterclass in understanding how this particular brand of trans-leftist argues:

Read more In Los Angeles, Nithya Raman now says she has a lot in common with Spencer Pratt

Of course, while Rowling has expertly exposed the fallacies, slippery slopes, and deflections, she’s still too much of a leftist to get to the heart of the matter, which is that you cannot argue with crazy people. A healthy society acknowledges that they are delusional, corrals them humanely but appropriately, and moves on.

But Rowling’s failure to make that argument points to a central problem she has, one that makes impossible her battle to protect women from the so-called transgender movement: She’s still too much of a leftist (she votes Labour).

When things will change is when Rowling acknowledges that the problem isn’t men in girls’ spaces; it’s a socialist worldview that denies reality entirely. The “trans” movement is just a symptom, while socialism is the disease. Until Rowling recognizes that core issue, she’s doomed to be the sexual realist equivalent of Sisyphus, endlessly pushing her facts and logic up the “trans” hill, only to see them crashing down again each morning.

Read more The Unfinished Revolution

Image created using AI.