The original essay she wrote was still very transphobic. Even if it seemed she had researched, she hadn't. The 'research' she was doing was following a genuinely insane bigot with a brain tumor who called for genocide of trans women, and a entitled upper middle class woman who really wanted to be able to deadname and misgender trans people at her contract job.

In that very first essay, she stated that trans women are a danger to cis women. She started from a position of hatred. All she has done is become more vulgar and less subtle. She is a threat to the existence of transgender people, and she has been since the very first day. The transgender community was pointing out how far gone she was on day one.

Here's an article that talks about what she said and why it was wrong in depth. The truth of the matter is that the response to that essay should have been a loud and resounding condemnation, but it wasn't.

I have been sexually assaulted before, too. I've never used what happened to me as justification to attack the rights of vulnerable minorities. The studies show overwhelmingly that the majority of women will be sexually abused in one way or another multiple times throughout their lives. And yet not every cis woman feels hate towards trans people. Many cis women support trans women. The majority of my friends are cis women, both queer and not. All of them support my rights. The majority of them have also been assaulted before by men. It's entirely irrelevant to the discussion, trans women are not men. The only possible justification there is that AMAB people are biologically rapists? Like there's something innate to the Y chromosome that makes you a rapist? Which is an absolutely wild way to view the world and the problem of sexual violence against women. Totally ignorant of why men get away with sexual assault so often. It's not genetics. It's entirely our society and culture that allows that to happen.

and partially based on personal trauma

Yeah, I suspected that, due to her pigheadedness. Doubling down is a trauma response. And it makes me angry, because it's continuing the cycle of abuse. Turning on an entire group of people because you have never adequately addressed your trauma is wrong.

Like, my earliest introduction to a male guardian included him emotionally, financially, and then physically abusing me. I wasn't even an adult, I was a minor. But I understand it's not okay to demonize all men because of that. You take people on a case by case basis.

I also understand quite clearly that men don't NEED to put on a skirt to gain access to women to abuse. In fact, being trans punts you right to the bottom of the social pole, and puts you in danger. Identifying as trans to gain access to women is socially stupid and NOT NEEDED to gain access to victims. It's already very easy for an abuser to abuse without taking the social hit of being trans. How do we know this? ::gestures at 100s of years of history where abusers abused without changing social status to do it::

Also, on the JKR front...the fact that I can get over my trauma--which honestly is much worse than hers and started younger if we're playing Oppression Olympics--while living in poverty while she rolls in money is like...what the fuck. WHY. Why is she rolling in the mud and the mold and the hate and spite? WHY?

I could do SO MUCH to improve myself and my health if I had her resources...and she just takes what she has and rolls in mud and hurts others...I mean, why don't more people act like Dolly Parton when they get rich? We need more Dolly Partons and less J. K. Rowlings.

Yeah, I guess I'm grumpy on the internet again.

I think most of us if you were asked to name a very evil regime would think of Nazi Germany. … I wanted Harry to leave our world and find exactly the same problems in the Wizarding world. So you have to the intent to impose a hierarchy, you have bigotry, and this notion of purity, which is a great fallacy, but it crops up all over the world. People like to think themselves superior and that if they can pride themselves on nothing else, they can pride themselves on perceived purity. … The Potter books in general are a prolonged argument for tolerance, a prolonged plea for an end to bigotry, and I think it's one of the reasons that some people don't like the books

JK Rowling, 2009

Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you. Live your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real? #IStandWithMaya #ThisIsNotADrill

JK Rowling 2019

It took 10 years to turn her.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/J._K._Rowling

He’s a more confrontational Keanu Reeves. I don’t remember Keanu ever speaking out against assholes (I could be wrong?). Keanu seems to just quietly do nice shit.

But who is Keanu Reeves going to be then?

Drink more water

There's a cream for that.

It's not like he cracked open a decaying tome to excavate "nattering doxy". "Heinous" never left.

If it wasn't, it sure is now.

I think they're trying to smear Pedro. They refer to his tweet as an attack and bring up his trans sister twice, implying that he only cares because his family is affected. The language they use to talk about JKR is, by contrast, much more sympathetic.

It is the US version. 🤷‍♀️

Who knows, maybe in their mind it makes Pedro look bad?

I missed something didn't I?

Womp womp no amount of success in any way can make her less of a heinous loser.