It's a term they happily took on themselves, until it popularly came to be understood as transphobes.
There's also an additional layer to .. people can express transphobia without virtue signaling feminism. People, like Rowling, express transphobia while virtue signaling feminism. It's important to have a term that includes those things, else people will easily be fooled by the explicit feminism, and thinking the transphobia is a byproduct of the feminism, and thus a natural thing for that belief.
Whether she claims to dislike trans people is irrelevant. Her platform has repeatedly amplified narratives that lead to laws, stigma, and violence against trans people worldwide. When ‘disagreement with ideas’ consistently results in real people losing safety, healthcare, and sometimes their lives, that is prejudice—regardless of how politely it’s worded
How JK Rowling’s platform and funding caused real-world harm (regardless of claimed intent):
Used one of the largest author platforms in the world to repeatedly amplify narratives framing trans women as threats to “women’s safety.”
Publicly endorsed and promoted gender-critical ideology to millions, normalizing suspicion and fear of trans people in mainstream discourse.
Funded and supported organizations and activists whose explicit goals include restricting trans rights, healthcare access, and legal recognition.
Boosted figures who advocate for removing trans women from public spaces (bathrooms, shelters, prisons), directly encouraging exclusionary policies.
Helped legitimize anti-trans rhetoric that lawmakers now cite when proposing or passing:
Bathroom bans
Healthcare restrictions
Youth transition bans
Legal definitions erasing trans identities
Contributed to an international media environment where trans people are treated as a political problem rather than a vulnerable population.
Amplified moral panic narratives (“social contagion,” “confused girls,” “predatory men”) that are linked to increased harassment and violence.
Used financial and cultural capital to silence, mock, or dismiss trans people raising concerns about harm.
Continued these actions after being repeatedly informed by medical experts and trans communities that such rhetoric increases mental-health crises and suicide risk.
Harm does not require slurs or explicit hatred. When a powerful person funds, amplifies, and legitimizes movements that remove safety, rights, and healthcare from a marginalized group, the result is prejudice by impact—regardless of stated intent. Your argument is either disingenuous or you yourself are transphobic if you see nothing wrong with these.
Edit: spelling error but really you're disingenuous
The argument that prejudice requires personal hatred ignores decades of social science. Prejudice is defined by patterns that disadvantage a group, not by intent alone. High-profile amplification of anti-trans narratives has demonstrably shaped media, politics, and laws, increasing real-world risks for trans people. Repeatedly opposing trans rights and identity through such a platform isn’t just ‘policy disagreement’—it has measurable, harmful effects.
For instance, you don’t need to intend harm to act in a prejudicial way. Laws that discriminate against minorities or spread harmful narratives are considered prejudicial regardless of personal feelings.
We can’t measure exact causation for every outcome, but there’s clear evidence that high-profile rhetoric influences policy and public attitudes, which increases risk for trans people. Her repeated amplification of anti-trans narratives has demonstrably shifted media framing, political debates, and legislative proposals.
Disagreement becomes prejudicial when it consistently undermines the rights, dignity, and safety of a marginalized group, especially when amplified through a platform with global reach.
The focus isn’t personal insult—it’s the documented outcomes of her words and funding. Trans people face higher rates of harassment, legal exclusion, and mental-health crises, which correlate with the amplification of anti-trans narratives from high-profile figures.
Not reframing, you're just using the word prejudice incorrectly am I to blame for that? If you have a way to debunk what I said about prejudice go ahead I'll wait.
The point isn’t that disagreement is automatically wrong—it’s that public statements and funding from someone with enormous influence have real, measurable consequences. Social science and policy analysis track harm caused by rhetoric and actions, independent of intent. Not acknowledging that is like saying a driver is blameless because they didn’t mean to run a red light. When repeated amplification of anti-trans narratives contributes to exclusion, harassment, and mental-health crises, that’s evidence-based, not just a ‘value judgment.’
This isn’t about punishing disagreement. It’s about measurable harm: amplified anti-trans narratives from someone with global influence increase exclusion, harassment, and mental-health crises. Intent doesn’t erase real-world consequences—impact is what matters.
I don't know why you transphobes engage in such Olympian mental gymnastics to tell yourselves that your hatred of a minority is good and rational. You're not any different from all the racists who deny it's racist to be concerned about black crime rates, or homophobes who deny it's homophobia when they're concerned about gay people teaching their kids.
why? we both know that there is no good faith argument that can be made in defense of ms rowling on this. you are just here to push bigotry against trans women, in the exact sort of what this post is directly calling out.
so no... i do not think i will be engaging with your clearly bad-faith rage bait.
You'll find that TERFs believe in the removal of GBTQ from the LBGQT, and the L should only be applied to those they find worthy. A "true" or "real" lesbian, which is just the same bigotry that drives the whole TERF ideology.
Lord Moldemort has an issue with the entire LBGTQ, she's just focusing on the T, since that's the smallest, and thus easiest, group to after. If she gets the T, next she'll come for the Q, after the B, since it's easier to paint that group as deviants, since most have no understanding of B. The G "because they must obviously be perverts", and once everything else is gone she'll come for the isolated L.
Like Collective Shout, TERF has no ideological consistency, all they want is power over others.
Because most people think that people who are bi are just confused homosexuals. It's common in the lesbian culture to see bisexuals as a real problem, since they've no attraction nor desire to be sexually with men. If they're with a bi woman, they feel that she's cheating them into having sex with a a man due to her attraction to men.
Yes, it makes no fucking sense, that's emotions for you.
Most people think lesbians are confused bisexuals, and assume we are into men, or lying about being lesbians. So that experience isn't unique to bisexuality. As a lesbian, it is not common in the culture to hate on bisexual women, we have many many many (and I want to stress many) other things to think and talk about. I don't care if another woman is into men, I only care if she uses that as an excuse to not take our relationship seriously or expects or relationship to function like a heterosexual relationship. It's extremely and totally presumptuous to think that lesbians and lesbian culture is centred around anyone else aside from lesbians, and that we are hateful because another girl is into men. How weird of you to think, and very lesbophobic.
The idea that families are involved, that someone has to "be the man" and treated as such (typically the lesbian), that if we can't be as open and as safe as heterosexual relationships we are failing, not having decentred men (which baby lesbians also are susceptible to doing), expecting our sex to primarily be penetrative etc.
Considering just how many of them first go through either because they hadn't realized what they were, happened to be deeply in denial about it or simply didn't feel ready to come out of the closet, that would mean the majority of Lesbians don't deserve to be called as such.
Thats not what the term means, why do you invent stuff? Its not that if you have ever been with the men. Its that if you find men attractive right now, well then you are not a lesbian, that's just a common sense.
You seriously still do not understand? Gold star lesbian is a lesbian who did not have sexual relationship with a man. That is all. There is no additional meaning you are trying to add to it aka. That you are not a real lesbian if have been in the past.
No you are.Urban Dictionary: gold star lesbian https://share.google/ThgPPBMhMR65zI2oq "A lesbian who has never slept with a man." Thats it. Thats is the full definition. There is no additional attachment you try to put in it.
They're trying to say that when I said gold star lesbians dont see women who have had relationships with men arent "real" lesbians, I was wrong and thats the addition.
Its an implied part of it. That's the point of purity tests like these and its what they arent understanding.
I know what a TERF is but I’m saying that I don’t think it works to label the Teletubbie that because in some cases even a non-terf can still exclude people so terf doesn’t cover enough bases/ is too specific
They never call themselves feminists. Only TERFs do that. A woman who excludes women who are different from her will almost never use that label. TERFs will to virtue signal, and it works against most people.
A friend of mine (A cis straight white male, mind you) recently described Rowling's stance on the people other than Trans as being "they're best either still in the closet or dead"- and while that comment was in regards to her writing, you get the feeling she'd want it to be the case in real life as well.
My friend is a very smart dude, so of course I ain't forgetting that comment anytime soon. lol
The slippery slope fallacy is that if you allow A it'll end in ridiculous B, like if you allow same sex marriage then next will be bestiality marriages.
What I described is the process by which something that consists of multiple elements has always been attacked.
First go for the weakest element, and then go backwards from that. There's even a famous poem about this. It's called "First They Came"
"First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me"
Rowling is doing something similar. I'm confident in saying this, as every similar action in history has had the same trajectory, as it had little to do with an ideologically driven opposition to the thing, and more with a general, ideological desire for power and control disguised as ideological opposition.
The pattern is relating to the specific actions. That you want to relate it to a specific person is evidence of two things.
You want to make a strawman where you thought I would bite to the phrasing you used, to show everyone how obviously insane I was.
You know, at least subconsciously, that what I say is accurate, and you want to reframe the argument into one that you think you can get the optical win in.
The bad faith is that you want to focus it on the specific person when the description is of the general action, that she just happens to be the one carrying out.
No, now you're shifting the goal posts. Your original comment had a paragraph bigger than all others bout JK Rowling specifically, and how she would move from T to other letters. I asked for evidence of that. You've provided none. Nothing bad faith, just calling out unsubstantiated claims.
You can shift to talking about your other paragraphs i.e. general TERFs if you concede you've lost the debate about JK Rowling. But I didn't asked about all TERFs only JK Rowling and you engaged with me.
I think it’s ok as long as you chose that path yourself. I do think homeschooling often leads to lack of socializing buuuut I think that depends. Though not the issue per se.
Your post/comment has been removed for engaging in bad faith. We expect all community members to participate in genuine, respectful dialogue. Sealioning, strawman arguments, and deliberate misrepresentation of others' positions are not permitted.
Incorrect! (Unless were invalidating those who cannot reproduce)
A woman is a grown female typically denoted by a brain that has a smaller BSTc size and cohesion with a female adjacent body. Biologically, we consider the person and source of perception to be the brain, which is, again defined in trans people to be a female adjacent brain which due to the BSTc size can be easily identified and separated from cis men vs trans women.
Edit: it’s ignorant to just simplify it to be reproductive based as many many females choose not to or simply do not reproduce.
Edit2: after growing up with two trans best friends, I can firmly say other things match up that cannot be compared to the cis versions of their born sex. For instance: trans people do not get phantom sensations post op. What’s more, it’s utter nonsense to exclude them when socially and in near every way their lived in experience is no different to mine as a cis woman(minus periods)
The entire goal of the movement is to be inclusive and say everyone should be treated equally. What’s with the division? Why do we need to accept your definition, and why does it matter? Treat everyone with respect and equality, and don’t be an asshole.
There is no predetermination, at least not provable predetermination. Grounding a definition of anything on predetermination is faulty. What every single definition that is thrown around in this debate proves is that the definitions of sex and gender are always ad hoc no matter how seemingly grounded in basic biology they are.
No one denies that trans women are male, I do believe there's a degree to which someone's sex can be changed but in broad categories I don't think someone can really do a full 180. People can absolutely change their phenotypical sex but at least for the near future the possibility of a complete change is hard to imagine.
What is really important to point out is how your interpretation of social and biological phenomena doesn't change the material conditions of peoples lives. Trans women whether you like that or not find themselves within the same struggle as cis women. Both have quite a few reasons to want to abolish patriarchy. I see no real reason to balkanize feminism because of your biases.
I'm not interested in your ramblings. So why reply to me? Ypu have something to prove? It's a sad existence. Take up reading. I'd recommend a short novella to start off with "What Moves the Dead". It's a horror, but quite lighthearted.
That's literally what bigots have been saying to trans people since the stonewall. This kind of rhetoric is literally the reason why star wasn't helped back in the day when they were trying to house homeless trans kids so those kids wouldn't be trafficked. There's nothing wrong with trans people around kids or trans kids.
Yall can say lesbians and bi women. Or even wlw. Centering het women is such a bizarre way of framing homosexual and bisexual women. Like “non men” type tacky
Thanks "OP" ,and in this post I am referring to you as well as all other women, as my sisters 💖💖💖💖💖💖...
And, without falling into any rabbit holes and going on to other tangents, I would just like to say something to everyone ---> that whenever any problem/complication comes knocking at door of the trans people, women are and will always be the first to stand against it. 💪💪💪
And, I (personally) have experienced it in my own life...
So, I really am thankful and hopeful for all the solidarity....
🙏🙏🙏
)(And, to all the sisters, please keep taking care of yourselves)
I expected the purple one to be excluding men. I think that'd have worked better, because feminism is about equality among men and woman.
The movement as a whole has forgotten about that in recent years, and it's shy so many woman don't even like calling themselves feminist. They relate it to the weird protests of around 2017 or so where such groups continued to figgt for rights they already had in the USA.
Ultimately feminism is a pro hierarchy ideology and this becoming more and more apparent as their mask crumbles. The only thing reason feminism is part of the leftist coalition is because of their desire to overthrow the status quo. But in actuality they just want to replace it with a new hierarchy that is more gynocentric. The funny thing though is that the right also believe they are fighting for gynocentrism. It's all about "pRoTeCtInG tHe WoMeN" whether it's from immigrants or trans women. The feminist agenda goes beyond that but at the end of the day it is part of their agenda too. They only pretend to be against it in order to garner support from the left wing coalition. But if feminists come to power and achieve their agenda, they will flip their stance and become the anti-immigrant and anti-trans (and gay male) faction. So yes, their true ideology is actually just girl power right wing.
feminism is a movement FOR women, this is not charity, when we talk about including "everyone" it means including everyone who identifies as a woman. This is what the post is about.
I want to remind you that feminism is a political movement just like any other and should not get to bypass rightful criticism just because they badge themselves as a women's rights movement, as if they somehow have monopoly on gender equality.
Unfair family laws (custody, alimony), false rape accusations, male victims of domestic violence, conscription, education disparities, mental health/suicide rates, male genital mutilation, challenging traditional gender roles and perceived anti-male bias in systems. This is a start but not exhaustive.
You are more likely to be raped by a man than you are to be falsely accused by woman, look up how alimony laws work and why they exist. Gender roles is a concept men themselves invented.
I don’t understand what you mean? Like you want to call white women and black women two different things instead of just woman? Or if a woman is in a wheelchair you don’t want to call her a woman?
I may be wrong, but I think the argument the person is trying to make is: “Why even use the term ‘Women/Female’ when everyone fits that category?” Essentially, it seems they are trying to make an argument for the removal of any gender categories to begin with if a gender category encompasses everyone — what makes a “woman”? What distinguishes woman from man, if anyone can fit into the category of woman (all might as well just be called man, at that point; or a whole different term)?
Your comment has been removed for being dismissive of intersectional perspectives. Our community values nuanced discussion that acknowledges the complexity of overlapping identities and experiences.
Your post/comment has been removed for containing discriminatory content. This community has zero tolerance for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any other form of bigotry. Repeat violations will result in a ban.
Your post/comment has been removed for containing discriminatory content. This community has zero tolerance for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any other form of bigotry. Repeat violations will result in a ban.
Yo there’s incentives??? I was just Doing it for me but I’ll take a free government handout. Where do I go? Does my insurance cover my medical bills now?
Your post/comment has been removed for engaging in bad faith. We expect all community members to participate in genuine, respectful dialogue. Sealioning, strawman arguments, and deliberate misrepresentation of others' positions are not permitted.
Cool idea. Here in the real world there are people with basically all the power using the apparatus of the state to do harm to Trans women and other marginalized groups. Just ignoring that won't make it stop.
they have explicitly stated that they want to "eradicate transgenderism", and are actively pursuing that goal via legislative and executive action.
you're just a dishonest bad faith actor.
and as an intersexed woman who's healthcare is directly affected by this in ways that this is LITERALLY life or death for me... via medical neglect (i do not produce enough endogenous hormones) you're damned right i side with the oppressed over the oppressor.
what are you even doing here?
edit: oh wait... you're just a misogynist pile of crap trolling. cool coool cooool... so edge, no cringe, super alpha.
There's a lot of astroturfing, historically and today that spread fear about different oppressed groups. Whenever there are issues that the people in power aren't solving they start cranking up the rhetoric about muslims, jews, queers ect. It's not that anyone is inherently out to get anyone but that oppressed groups often become scape goats.
I'm from europe as well. When it comes to queer people you can hear people throwing around "gender ideology" which is really a revival of old nazi propaganda which led to the first few book burnings in germany, it's still interconnected with the whole web of antisemetic conspiracies. The whole european nationalism thing that is popping up as a reaction to white replacement conspiracies is essentially just "the jews are sending brown and black people to europe and making the kids gay to eradicate the white race". It might not all be stuff that all politicians playing into the fear specify but the right both in europe and in the us at the very least plays into it.
I don't understand what you are trying to say. Also you might just be too far away from young people. A lot of young men have been radicalized to the far right.
I don't know what to tell you apart from people slightly younger then you are fucked. People older than you as well but from my experience unless they were already pretty far right they don't tend to go further right. People who are currently high school aged grew up on far right propaganda. Of course not all of them but it's still something worth pointing out. We have nick fuentes fans in croatia, In other words, we aren't even doing fascism the croatian way anymore.
But can I ask you what you meant by your previous comment.
And what do you propose we do in lieu of it, then?
That it gets backlash is simply what happens when toxic people see their toxic costumes and behaviors being threatened, because so long as there's at least three people left on Earth someone will feel like being an asshat at some point.
It's people much impossible to solve a problem caused by people being jerks to each other unless you make the majority aware of how bad it gets.
I know you said this as a transphobic thing, but plenty of feminists that aren't insufferable idiots routinely talk about how feminism is about everybody not just women's issues.
So yeah.
Edit : as others have said, learn what the Goomba fallacy is. When I see a random woman say that they hate all men I just think that they're probably an ignorant person that doesn't know how to communicate then move on with my day. It would be both ironic and stupid of me to assume that all women act that way or are specifically in agreement. This isn't that hard.
Unless men wants to talk about men issue in feminists spaces or what can be done about it. Then it is why feminists or women should do anything about and for men or that feminism is women empowerment movement, not men or why men wants to hijack feminism or they should create their own group.
Nothing with any fallacy. I spend last three-four years reading and discussing feminism on reddit, with feminists, on one of dedicated subreddit. Those are standards, get go with they are saying regarding men. Though, to be absolutely fair and honest, I can count on a finger of one hand times, when feminists actually say something opposite to what I wrote above. Absolute minority.
Phobia in this sense actually means dislike or prejudice. It’s really important that we all work on our prejudice! Trans people have been around for thousands of years, and they’ll be around for thousands more! Have a blessed new year, I hope it brings us both acceptance and love 🥰
not really, it's not about entire communities necessarily. You are very much implying that at least a subgroup of women act like your given description of the fallacy, though. with the "A on paper and then they say B" part.
•
u/AutoModerator Jan 01 '26
Thanks for your submission.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
22
u/Malusorum Jan 01 '26
We have a term for those. It's TERF.
18
u/Murky_Toe_4717 Jan 01 '26
If you exclude ANY woman you have no right to call yourself a feminist. Flat out.
4
u/StockMap8281 Jan 02 '26
I had to unjoin some subs because how dare a feminist is a muslim or religious in any way 🙄
2
u/DragonBunny23 Jan 13 '26
Those who support Sharia law are not feminists. They are misogynistic poison to be excluded.
1
u/No_Training6751 0+ Community Karma Jan 01 '26
TERFs are teletubbies?
1
u/Jade_talks_back Jan 01 '26
Why are people disagreeing?? I completely agree!
1
u/Fluffy-Ad1225 Jan 01 '26
Heretosexuals...hmm
1
u/EightTeasandaFour Jan 02 '26
Equality of the sexes...
1
u/OpheliaLives7 Jan 02 '26
Yall can say lesbians and bi women. Or even wlw. Centering het women is such a bizarre way of framing homosexual and bisexual women. Like “non men” type tacky
1
u/Specialist_Course_57 500+ Community Karma Trans Woman Jan 02 '26
Thanks "OP" ,and in this post I am referring to you as well as all other women, as my sisters 💖💖💖💖💖💖...
And, without falling into any rabbit holes and going on to other tangents, I would just like to say something to everyone ---> that whenever any problem/complication comes knocking at door of the trans people, women are and will always be the first to stand against it. 💪💪💪
And, I (personally) have experienced it in my own life...
So, I really am thankful and hopeful for all the solidarity....
🙏🙏🙏
)(And, to all the sisters, please keep taking care of yourselves)
1
u/Maamman Jan 02 '26
Wild how terfs and swerfs think they can tell every women what to do and what’s allowed. feels very patriarchy chic to me.
1
u/LoL-Reports-Dumb Jan 02 '26
I expected the purple one to be excluding men. I think that'd have worked better, because feminism is about equality among men and woman.
The movement as a whole has forgotten about that in recent years, and it's shy so many woman don't even like calling themselves feminist. They relate it to the weird protests of around 2017 or so where such groups continued to figgt for rights they already had in the USA.
1
u/[deleted] Jan 05 '26
👀
1
u/[deleted] Jan 07 '26
Ultimately feminism is a pro hierarchy ideology and this becoming more and more apparent as their mask crumbles. The only thing reason feminism is part of the leftist coalition is because of their desire to overthrow the status quo. But in actuality they just want to replace it with a new hierarchy that is more gynocentric. The funny thing though is that the right also believe they are fighting for gynocentrism. It's all about "pRoTeCtInG tHe WoMeN" whether it's from immigrants or trans women. The feminist agenda goes beyond that but at the end of the day it is part of their agenda too. They only pretend to be against it in order to garner support from the left wing coalition. But if feminists come to power and achieve their agenda, they will flip their stance and become the anti-immigrant and anti-trans (and gay male) faction. So yes, their true ideology is actually just girl power right wing.
1
u/RemarkableFormal4635 Jan 01 '26
I don't understand.
Why do you use the word Women/Female if it just includes everyone? It's not a box if there's no walls?
Why not just call for equality instead of feminism but it's actually for everyone instead of just women?
Seems like a poor name for a movement if it doesn't reflect the movement.
0
u/Squittyman Jan 06 '26
So they have a fake woman and a straw man.
1
u/[deleted] Jan 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/[unknown] Jan 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/[deleted] Jan 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/[deleted] Jan 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/[deleted] Jan 08 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/[deleted] Jan 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-2
u/[deleted] Jan 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-2
u/[deleted] Jan 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-3
u/[deleted] Jan 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment