J. K. Rowling Was Right All Along About Transgender Ideology

Yep.

A reminder about Spencer Case: When Philosophers Fail To Do Their Jobs.

   As I've been saying for ten years (or however long it's been): the central case here is an open and shut one. It is simply not in question: a woman is an adult, female human. A girl is a juvenile female human. Men: adult male humans. Boys: juvenile male humans. Everybody knows this. 

   Adults are free to live as they like. That can mean e.g.: men dressing in womanly ways, etc. People are free to lie about their sex, delude themselves about it, whatever. But the idea that dressing or "identifying" as a woman is what makes someone a woman is simply absurd.

   Should men be able to use women's restrooms and locker rooms? Should they be able to play in women's sports divisions? Should hospitals, universities, etc. have to play along with women who insist they're men? Those are separate questions. But we should start the discussion of them by drawing a line in the terminological (and to some extent conceptual) sand with respect to 'woman,' 'man,' etc.

   The public has been badgered into pretending that (trans)gender ideology is a reasonable view--in fact, that it's now the orthodoxy. In fact, that it should be treated with kid gloves--reverentially, even. Some have even been badgered into believing it. And, of course, many on the left are true believers. But it's false. Absurdly false.

  Philosophy, which actually could have been some help for once, has been ideologically captured. It seems to split fairly evenly into two groups: (a) true believers and (b) those who timidly refuse to contradict the left--at least in public. 

   Anyway.

   Yes, J. K. Rowling has been right all along. Weird that it takes a celebrity to play such a role.