7 ms·

I think the author here misrepresented the JK Rowling thing quite a bit. The idea is not to "scour" her texts for hidden anti-trans sentiment. The idea is that

I think the author here misrepresented the JK Rowling thing quite a bit. The idea is not to "scour" her texts for hidden anti-trans sentiment. The idea is that Rowling makes money off of selling her books and has built an empire, and the resultant power is now used by her as a platform to propagate anti-trans speech. Quite a different issue and also quite novel (pun unintended). Death of the Author is a concurrently operating, but in my opinion separate, question.

vcavallo 6y ago
i’m not familiar with JKR’s anti-trans speech. got a quote?
- troutwine 6y ago
  Might be this is the kind of thing you’re looking for: https://www.glamour.com/story/a-complete-breakdown-of-the-jk-rowling-transgender-comments-controversy https://www.glamour.com/story/a-complete-breakdown-of-the-jk...
  - CodeGlitch 6y ago
    > On June 6, 2020, Rowling retweeted an op-ed piece that discussed “people who menstruate,” apparently taking issue with the fact that the story did not use the word women. “‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud? I'm still not convinced this is anti-trans. I mean it's reality so for people to want to cancel her over this is ridiculous (which sums up the woke-ideology pretty much).
    - troutwine 6y ago
      This pulled quote, in isolation, might not be, sure. The question about this particular complaint is whether its meant exclusively or inclusively. Does a woman who has stopped menstruating stop being a woman? Is a woman who has never menstruated and never will, in fact, not a woman? What if these people feel in their person like women? How one reads Rowling's comment in light of these questions informs one's sense of her intent. If you read Rowling's comment inclusively then it's a clumsy, ambiguous complaint about shifting language norms that is harmless and warrants a clarification. If you read the comment exclusively -- which I think is fair given Rowling's other statements over the years -- then I find it hard to read in a charitable light. It is, I admit, entirely possible that Rowling doesn't hold trans-exclusionary views and has merely, accidentally chosen ambiguous wording over the years and is pig-headed enough to be unwilling to clarify but I do find this _unlikely_ considering that she's a famously clear author who is willing to clarify (and extend) her body of work for years after the fact.
      - CodeGlitch 6y ago
        > Does a woman who has stopped menstruating stop being a woman? Equally does a man who wears women's clothes make them a woman? I'm happy for them to call themselves a trans-woman, and "she", but we have to have language that separates the sexes at the biological level. > What if these people feel in their person like women? The word "feel" in this context is extremely woolly. This is how we have gotten ourselves into this ridiculous situation where no-one can agree on anything to do with gender / sexes. > If you read Rowling's comment inclusively then it's a clumsy, ambiguous complaint about shifting language norms that is harmless and warrants a clarification. If you read the comment exclusively -- which I think is fair given Rowling's other statements over the years -- then I find it hard to read in a charitable light. It is, I admit, entirely possible that Rowling doesn't hold trans-exclusionary views and has merely, accidentally chosen ambiguous wording over the years and is pig-headed enough to be unwilling to clarify but I do find this _unlikely_ considering that she's a famously clear author who is willing to clarify (and extend) her body of work for years after the fact. So you might be partly right on this - but given her contribution to literacy and the arts and woman's rights we know she is a thoughtful, intelligent, compassionate person. Given all her positive contributions to society the hostile reaction from the trans-side is telling really.
      - nec4b 6y ago
        Do you know of any other group of people who are menstruating and are not women?
        pseudalopex 6y ago
        Some trans men and non binary people. And many women don't menstruate.
        nec4b 6y ago
        >Some trans men and non binary people. Those are biological females (women). >And many women don't menstruate. What is your point here?
- harshreality 6y ago
  The tl;dr of it is that she's commented about biological femininity as a real experience distinct from trans-females. That offends the ideological extreme of the trans movement which has labelled her a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist).
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    JKR is much more clearly TE than RF.
    - Avicebron 6y ago
      why is it TE to have an opinion?
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        That’s like asking “why is it racist to have an opinion?” It’s not. Its TE (or racist, or whatever) to have a TE (or racist, or whatever) opinion.
        zepto 6y ago
        Is it in some absolute sense for all time? Or is it only ‘TE’ within the theoretical framework of Trans activists?
        pseudalopex 6y ago
        Excluding people is exclusionary. It doesn't mean justified or unjustified.
        zepto 6y ago
        Excluding people from a category is just a way of thinking about something. Trans people exclude CIS people from the category of Trans. Do we call them CIS exclusionary? Just saying someone else is exclusionary is meaningless.
undefined1 6y ago
it's not true that JK Rowling was or is doing that. that's a misrepresentation.
- space_fountain 6y ago
  I think this comment exemplifies the core of the issue. It’s not that many people actually have a problem with society holding famous people to account for their misdeeds. It’s that they simply don’t think they are misdeeds. They don’t find a problem with the things JK says and they feel like Woody Allen is probably a nice guy unfairly being attacked. Which like actually fine, that’s a legitimate position you can take which might actually be right, but it doesn’t really say anything about it being ok or not for the larger culture to sanction people
  - makomk 6y ago
    The other problem with this claim is that even if you do believe that J K Rowling's personal views are transphobic (and honestly, they probably are), she really doesn't seem to have been using her power to push them. The woke establishment that's been going after her, on the other hand, absolutely used their power to push transphobia in ways that actually mattered, including into UK law.
    - space_fountain 6y ago
      I mean we wouldn’t even be talking about this if she wasn’t you know a famous well respected author. I haven’t read her latest book, but my understanding is it has a character who is pretty close to the terf idea of what a trans person is which would seem like it’s using her writing to perpetuate her view
      - zepto 6y ago
        The concept that it is perpetuating her view seems very questionable to me. Is it influenced by her view? Of course. Does it perpetuate it? Surely that depends on how readers react to it. We are free to interpret works as we like. My own view on this is complex. The problems JK Rowling outlines are clearly real, but of course so are the problems of trans people in gaining acceptance in society. Both TERFs and Trans people are groups that face gendered violence. If the mere writing of a character that holds a view ‘perpetuates it’, then don’t we need to burn all books written before the 1990s?
dragonwriter 6y ago
> The idea is that Rowling makes money off of selling her books and has built an empire, and the resultant power is now used by her as a platform to propagate anti-trans speech. Quite a different issue and also quite novel People building fame in art and using that fame to advocate for causes, including the cause of preserving the marginalization of particular marginalized communities, is not novel.
- at_a_remove 6y ago
  This take sounds like Rowling had written Harry Potter to fulfill her dream of one day being famous and crushing transsexuals beneath her expensive heels. "When I am a billionaire author," she cackled, "I will show them all!" Famous people are still people, and they still have opinions. Opinions you might not even agree with. Are we to exclude the famous from speaking their opinions? I would love to see how that would work, both legally and as kind of a sci-fi premise. Actors interviewed on late night shows offering only the blandest of reactions to what is said. No longer are musicians able to fund charities with their wealth, since donations are speech, as per the Supreme Court. Court battles are waged over how wealthy must be or how many Google hits are found for their name before someone is too famous to have opinions. It lacks laser-guns and aliens, but as a very dry, Burgess-like exploration of government policy as a near-future sci-fi, it might be workable.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > This take sounds like Rowling had written Harry Potter to fulfill her dream of one day being famous and crushing transsexuals beneath her expensive heels. First, my response was denying that the description was of a phenomenon which was in any way novel as the upthread poster claimed, it wasn’t my description. Second, I don’t read it that way: it was simply describing that, Rowling achieved fame and then, having achieved it, used it to sell certain ideas. There was no suggestion that it was planned in advance as a strategy, or even that that use was especially prominent among her uses of the fame.
radiator 6y ago
But why is it considered anti-trans speech, when a villain is "a male serial killer known to have worn a dress"? Surely, in many other books the serial killer is a straight male. Why are their authors not accused of anti-heterosexual speech? Are we promoting some sort of discrimination against straight males? Are they the only ones allowed to be evil?
- danaliv 6y ago
  > why is it considered anti-trans speech, when a villain is "a male serial killer known to have worn a dress" That's not what OP is referring to. Go read her Twitter feed and blog.
- krapp 6y ago
  > But why is it considered anti-trans speech, when a villain is "a male serial killer known to have worn a dress"? Mostly the cultural effects of the Hays code and decades of queer-coding villains as evil or sexually depraved in fiction and popular culture. A fictional male serial killer tends not to simply "have worn a dress," that specific detail, like all details in fiction, is intended to communicate something to the reader/viewer, and most of the time it's to present the character's non-heteronormative behavior as a symptom of their moral evil. Technically speaking there's nothing wrong with depicting a Black person eating a watermelon and fried chicken but there's context behind the tendency to interpret it other than purely literal terms.
  - MikeUt 6y ago
    > that specific detail, like all details in fiction, is intended to communicate something to the reader/viewer Except the details of being white or male - those are not intended to communicate anything?
    - krapp 6y ago
      >Except the details of being white or male - those are not intended to communicate anything? Not typically. Being white and male (and straight, and Christian) is considered so normative in Western society and culture that it's basically a blank slate, "default human." How often is a white character's race specifically mentioned, unless it's to form a contrast with some other non-white character's race? It almost never happens, because white male characters are often just there. Every deviation from that norm has to be specifically mentioned and pointed out, and unless the author is part of the group or culture being portrayed, is usually done through stereotype.
shuetr 6y ago
and you can’t let people decide whether to give her money or not because you are an elitist.
blub 6y ago
Being against the existence of trans people and criticizing the claims or actions of people that happen to be trans are two different things. But the online trans community is extremely aggressive against any criticism, trying to slander whoever they consider their opponents and performing character assassinations. Anti-trans speech may be perfectly fine. They're not saints and they're not perfect, why should they be beyond critique?
kar5pt 6y ago
Yeah, I used to think the JK Rowling thing was just another example of Twitter activists blowing a celebrity's words out of proportion, then I watched the Contrapoints video on JK Rowling. Now I'm convinced she's not only a transphobe, but is intentionally manipulating a public which is largely ignorant of trans issues into thinking she's the victim. As you can see from plenty of the other comments, it's working.
bobthechef 6y ago
> a platform to propagate anti-trans speech This kind of response is precisely the thing that irks me to no end and it's something nobody will ever discuss. They'll just shun you or hurl a slogan at you as if you said something utterly ridiculous. Let's broaden our time horizons a bit to something longer than the time it takes to read a tweet. When did you start to stand up for "trans" and oppose "anti-trans"? I'm asking a serious question, if only rhetorically. When did this become the obvious thing to do, the right thing to do, a matter of fact, and beyond discussion? Was there ever a discussion? Because all I can remember is that one day we were calling this gender dysphoria, a mental disorder, and the next day, a bunch of aggressive campus demonstrators were making demands and hurling accusations and trying to silence and bully people into going along. Then, all of a sudden, a new generation of college graduates started entering the workplace repeating these stock slogans verbatim. What are they, agents of the Komsomol? What horrifies me is how easily people go along without question. It is truly horrifying. It horrifies me that they don't even seem to realize that that's what they're doing, floating downstream, wherever the current takes them. Milgram was crude child's play by comparison! So when you condemn JK Rowling for disagreeing as if she had committed some crime against humanity, in light of how things actually transpired, in light of how viciously this program has been and is being implemented, I really makes me wonder.
Aunche 6y ago
I think that society has become so complicated that people have become detached with reality and started inventing useless solutions to rather minor problems. Now, if you so much as touch something that is problematic, you automatically become problematic, and the solution for this is just to complain about it as loudly as possible. Correct or not, JK Rowling's thoughts about femininity are likely shared by the vast majority of the world. Exaggerating her beliefs by calling her transphobic and radical isn't going to progress trans rights in any way. Note that this attitude is entirely monopolized by "woke culture." It happens in other spaces as well (e.g. encouragement to name and shame a company you had a bad interviewing experience with).
- devchix 6y ago
  I simply do not understand the furor over the JK Rowling affair. I read what she wrote, and I did not see "hate", or "transphobia", and many other very extreme adjectives. When she seeked to clarify her statements she was accused of "doubling down". Fans of Life of Brian will remember the Roman amphitheatre scene when Stan wants to become Loretta: https://www.mit.edu/afs.new/sipb/user/ayshames/Python/LORETTA.PYTHON https://www.mit.edu/afs.new/sipb/user/ayshames/Python/LORETT... I thought and still think it's funny, "Where's the fetus going to gestate Stan, are you going to keep it in a box?" But now I'm afraid to laugh or reference it in public. The movie is probably going to end up on a list, and its fans made to feel bad for being horrible people. I think I can both laugh at Stan, who's not real, and accept and support misgendered people, who are.

vcavallo 6y ago

i’m not familiar with JKR’s anti-trans speech. got a quote?

troutwine 6y ago
Might be this is the kind of thing you’re looking for: https://www.glamour.com/story/a-complete-breakdown-of-the-jk-rowling-transgender-comments-controversy https://www.glamour.com/story/a-complete-breakdown-of-the-jk...
- CodeGlitch 6y ago
  > On June 6, 2020, Rowling retweeted an op-ed piece that discussed “people who menstruate,” apparently taking issue with the fact that the story did not use the word women. “‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud? I'm still not convinced this is anti-trans. I mean it's reality so for people to want to cancel her over this is ridiculous (which sums up the woke-ideology pretty much).
  - troutwine 6y ago
    This pulled quote, in isolation, might not be, sure. The question about this particular complaint is whether its meant exclusively or inclusively. Does a woman who has stopped menstruating stop being a woman? Is a woman who has never menstruated and never will, in fact, not a woman? What if these people feel in their person like women? How one reads Rowling's comment in light of these questions informs one's sense of her intent. If you read Rowling's comment inclusively then it's a clumsy, ambiguous complaint about shifting language norms that is harmless and warrants a clarification. If you read the comment exclusively -- which I think is fair given Rowling's other statements over the years -- then I find it hard to read in a charitable light. It is, I admit, entirely possible that Rowling doesn't hold trans-exclusionary views and has merely, accidentally chosen ambiguous wording over the years and is pig-headed enough to be unwilling to clarify but I do find this _unlikely_ considering that she's a famously clear author who is willing to clarify (and extend) her body of work for years after the fact.
    - CodeGlitch 6y ago
      > Does a woman who has stopped menstruating stop being a woman? Equally does a man who wears women's clothes make them a woman? I'm happy for them to call themselves a trans-woman, and "she", but we have to have language that separates the sexes at the biological level. > What if these people feel in their person like women? The word "feel" in this context is extremely woolly. This is how we have gotten ourselves into this ridiculous situation where no-one can agree on anything to do with gender / sexes. > If you read Rowling's comment inclusively then it's a clumsy, ambiguous complaint about shifting language norms that is harmless and warrants a clarification. If you read the comment exclusively -- which I think is fair given Rowling's other statements over the years -- then I find it hard to read in a charitable light. It is, I admit, entirely possible that Rowling doesn't hold trans-exclusionary views and has merely, accidentally chosen ambiguous wording over the years and is pig-headed enough to be unwilling to clarify but I do find this _unlikely_ considering that she's a famously clear author who is willing to clarify (and extend) her body of work for years after the fact. So you might be partly right on this - but given her contribution to literacy and the arts and woman's rights we know she is a thoughtful, intelligent, compassionate person. Given all her positive contributions to society the hostile reaction from the trans-side is telling really.
    - nec4b 6y ago
      Do you know of any other group of people who are menstruating and are not women?
      - pseudalopex 6y ago
        Some trans men and non binary people. And many women don't menstruate.
        nec4b 6y ago
        >Some trans men and non binary people. Those are biological females (women). >And many women don't menstruate. What is your point here?
harshreality 6y ago
The tl;dr of it is that she's commented about biological femininity as a real experience distinct from trans-females. That offends the ideological extreme of the trans movement which has labelled her a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist).
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  JKR is much more clearly TE than RF.
  - Avicebron 6y ago
    why is it TE to have an opinion?
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      That’s like asking “why is it racist to have an opinion?” It’s not. Its TE (or racist, or whatever) to have a TE (or racist, or whatever) opinion.
      - zepto 6y ago
        Is it in some absolute sense for all time? Or is it only ‘TE’ within the theoretical framework of Trans activists?
        pseudalopex 6y ago
        Excluding people is exclusionary. It doesn't mean justified or unjustified.
        zepto 6y ago
        Excluding people from a category is just a way of thinking about something. Trans people exclude CIS people from the category of Trans. Do we call them CIS exclusionary? Just saying someone else is exclusionary is meaningless.

undefined1 6y ago

it's not true that JK Rowling was or is doing that. that's a misrepresentation.

space_fountain 6y ago
I think this comment exemplifies the core of the issue. It’s not that many people actually have a problem with society holding famous people to account for their misdeeds. It’s that they simply don’t think they are misdeeds. They don’t find a problem with the things JK says and they feel like Woody Allen is probably a nice guy unfairly being attacked. Which like actually fine, that’s a legitimate position you can take which might actually be right, but it doesn’t really say anything about it being ok or not for the larger culture to sanction people
- makomk 6y ago
  The other problem with this claim is that even if you do believe that J K Rowling's personal views are transphobic (and honestly, they probably are), she really doesn't seem to have been using her power to push them. The woke establishment that's been going after her, on the other hand, absolutely used their power to push transphobia in ways that actually mattered, including into UK law.
  - space_fountain 6y ago
    I mean we wouldn’t even be talking about this if she wasn’t you know a famous well respected author. I haven’t read her latest book, but my understanding is it has a character who is pretty close to the terf idea of what a trans person is which would seem like it’s using her writing to perpetuate her view
    - zepto 6y ago
      The concept that it is perpetuating her view seems very questionable to me. Is it influenced by her view? Of course. Does it perpetuate it? Surely that depends on how readers react to it. We are free to interpret works as we like. My own view on this is complex. The problems JK Rowling outlines are clearly real, but of course so are the problems of trans people in gaining acceptance in society. Both TERFs and Trans people are groups that face gendered violence. If the mere writing of a character that holds a view ‘perpetuates it’, then don’t we need to burn all books written before the 1990s?

dragonwriter 6y ago

> The idea is that Rowling makes money off of selling her books and has built an empire, and the resultant power is now used by her as a platform to propagate anti-trans speech. Quite a different issue and also quite novel People building fame in art and using that fame to advocate for causes, including the cause of preserving the marginalization of particular marginalized communities, is not novel.

at_a_remove 6y ago
This take sounds like Rowling had written Harry Potter to fulfill her dream of one day being famous and crushing transsexuals beneath her expensive heels. "When I am a billionaire author," she cackled, "I will show them all!" Famous people are still people, and they still have opinions. Opinions you might not even agree with. Are we to exclude the famous from speaking their opinions? I would love to see how that would work, both legally and as kind of a sci-fi premise. Actors interviewed on late night shows offering only the blandest of reactions to what is said. No longer are musicians able to fund charities with their wealth, since donations are speech, as per the Supreme Court. Court battles are waged over how wealthy must be or how many Google hits are found for their name before someone is too famous to have opinions. It lacks laser-guns and aliens, but as a very dry, Burgess-like exploration of government policy as a near-future sci-fi, it might be workable.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > This take sounds like Rowling had written Harry Potter to fulfill her dream of one day being famous and crushing transsexuals beneath her expensive heels. First, my response was denying that the description was of a phenomenon which was in any way novel as the upthread poster claimed, it wasn’t my description. Second, I don’t read it that way: it was simply describing that, Rowling achieved fame and then, having achieved it, used it to sell certain ideas. There was no suggestion that it was planned in advance as a strategy, or even that that use was especially prominent among her uses of the fame.

radiator 6y ago

But why is it considered anti-trans speech, when a villain is "a male serial killer known to have worn a dress"? Surely, in many other books the serial killer is a straight male. Why are their authors not accused of anti-heterosexual speech? Are we promoting some sort of discrimination against straight males? Are they the only ones allowed to be evil?

danaliv 6y ago
> why is it considered anti-trans speech, when a villain is "a male serial killer known to have worn a dress" That's not what OP is referring to. Go read her Twitter feed and blog.
krapp 6y ago
> But why is it considered anti-trans speech, when a villain is "a male serial killer known to have worn a dress"? Mostly the cultural effects of the Hays code and decades of queer-coding villains as evil or sexually depraved in fiction and popular culture. A fictional male serial killer tends not to simply "have worn a dress," that specific detail, like all details in fiction, is intended to communicate something to the reader/viewer, and most of the time it's to present the character's non-heteronormative behavior as a symptom of their moral evil. Technically speaking there's nothing wrong with depicting a Black person eating a watermelon and fried chicken but there's context behind the tendency to interpret it other than purely literal terms.
- MikeUt 6y ago
  > that specific detail, like all details in fiction, is intended to communicate something to the reader/viewer Except the details of being white or male - those are not intended to communicate anything?
  - krapp 6y ago
    >Except the details of being white or male - those are not intended to communicate anything? Not typically. Being white and male (and straight, and Christian) is considered so normative in Western society and culture that it's basically a blank slate, "default human." How often is a white character's race specifically mentioned, unless it's to form a contrast with some other non-white character's race? It almost never happens, because white male characters are often just there. Every deviation from that norm has to be specifically mentioned and pointed out, and unless the author is part of the group or culture being portrayed, is usually done through stereotype.

shuetr 6y ago

and you can’t let people decide whether to give her money or not because you are an elitist.

blub 6y ago

Being against the existence of trans people and criticizing the claims or actions of people that happen to be trans are two different things. But the online trans community is extremely aggressive against any criticism, trying to slander whoever they consider their opponents and performing character assassinations. Anti-trans speech may be perfectly fine. They're not saints and they're not perfect, why should they be beyond critique?

kar5pt 6y ago

Yeah, I used to think the JK Rowling thing was just another example of Twitter activists blowing a celebrity's words out of proportion, then I watched the Contrapoints video on JK Rowling. Now I'm convinced she's not only a transphobe, but is intentionally manipulating a public which is largely ignorant of trans issues into thinking she's the victim. As you can see from plenty of the other comments, it's working.

bobthechef 6y ago

> a platform to propagate anti-trans speech This kind of response is precisely the thing that irks me to no end and it's something nobody will ever discuss. They'll just shun you or hurl a slogan at you as if you said something utterly ridiculous. Let's broaden our time horizons a bit to something longer than the time it takes to read a tweet. When did you start to stand up for "trans" and oppose "anti-trans"? I'm asking a serious question, if only rhetorically. When did this become the obvious thing to do, the right thing to do, a matter of fact, and beyond discussion? Was there ever a discussion? Because all I can remember is that one day we were calling this gender dysphoria, a mental disorder, and the next day, a bunch of aggressive campus demonstrators were making demands and hurling accusations and trying to silence and bully people into going along. Then, all of a sudden, a new generation of college graduates started entering the workplace repeating these stock slogans verbatim. What are they, agents of the Komsomol? What horrifies me is how easily people go along without question. It is truly horrifying. It horrifies me that they don't even seem to realize that that's what they're doing, floating downstream, wherever the current takes them. Milgram was crude child's play by comparison! So when you condemn JK Rowling for disagreeing as if she had committed some crime against humanity, in light of how things actually transpired, in light of how viciously this program has been and is being implemented, I really makes me wonder.

Aunche 6y ago

I think that society has become so complicated that people have become detached with reality and started inventing useless solutions to rather minor problems. Now, if you so much as touch something that is problematic, you automatically become problematic, and the solution for this is just to complain about it as loudly as possible. Correct or not, JK Rowling's thoughts about femininity are likely shared by the vast majority of the world. Exaggerating her beliefs by calling her transphobic and radical isn't going to progress trans rights in any way. Note that this attitude is entirely monopolized by "woke culture." It happens in other spaces as well (e.g. encouragement to name and shame a company you had a bad interviewing experience with).

devchix 6y ago
I simply do not understand the furor over the JK Rowling affair. I read what she wrote, and I did not see "hate", or "transphobia", and many other very extreme adjectives. When she seeked to clarify her statements she was accused of "doubling down". Fans of Life of Brian will remember the Roman amphitheatre scene when Stan wants to become Loretta: https://www.mit.edu/afs.new/sipb/user/ayshames/Python/LORETTA.PYTHON https://www.mit.edu/afs.new/sipb/user/ayshames/Python/LORETT... I thought and still think it's funny, "Where's the fetus going to gestate Stan, are you going to keep it in a box?" But now I'm afraid to laugh or reference it in public. The movie is probably going to end up on a list, and its fans made to feel bad for being horrible people. I think I can both laugh at Stan, who's not real, and accept and support misgendered people, who are.