Why is J.K. Rowling telling Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson to ‘save their apologies’ and does she really think they’re sorry?

At this point, I struggle to discern if J.K. Rowling is willfully ignorant of the damage she leaves in her wake by pitting vulnerable groups against one another in hopes of validating some myopic rhetoric about the fragility of one’s experience, or if her very apparent trauma, both past and present, is unbearably severe to the point where she can’t even be bothered to care.

The mystery continues, in any case, with Rowling’s latest comments confirming that she has no intention of forgiving Emma Watson and Daniel Radcliffe—the stars of the Harry Potter film series who have showed their support for trans people in response to Rowling’s activity—for doing so, even though the two actors seem to have less than zero interest in stepping down from their stances.

Her tweet (pictured below) included the sentiment they and other actors who have shown support for trans people can “save their apologies for traumatized detransitioners and vulnerable women reliant on single sex spaces.”

Now, I ask you, Rowling, what gives you the permission to speak for detransitioners when you yourself are not one? Their experiences are every bit as valid as those of us who have hormone therapy to thank for keeping us from offing ourselves (pleased to meet you), and my heart goes out to them as they navigate their own unique struggles. But to use their experiences as a way to paint support for trans people as some sort of evil, is wickedly hypocritical coming from someone who claims that the lived experiences of cis women are being erased because the world supposedly isn’t acknowledging biological sex anymore (spoiler alert: it still very much is).

And here’s the other thing; if you think that the validity of the lived experience of cis women can somehow be threatened by the presence of trans women, then that suggests considerable insecurity about your own experience, and I’m sympathetic to that, but pedantry over the word “woman” and who it applies to is not going to solve that. And while I have no doubt that vulnerable cis women are reliant on single-sex spaces such as women’s shelters, and should be entitled to those, you’ve shown little in the way of concern for where vulnerable trans women might go, nor have you seemed to give any thought to where fully-transitioned trans men (yes, with beards) might go, since they likely wouldn’t be welcome in those single-sex spaces either, even though the concept of a single-sex space would demand it; not even so much as a suggestion of a hypothetical trans-specific space. Why, then, should anyone believe that your tweets are primarily coming from anywhere other than unchiseled disdain for a group of people you don’t understand?

Does more work need to be done so that trans people can receive the recognition, respect, and protection they need while also ensuring that those parameters can be exploited by bad-faith players as little as possible? Yes, absolutely. Does there need to be more public and otherwise accessible education and healthcare services related to gender dysphoria so that those who need hormone therapy can access it, and those who don’t need it can make informed decisions? Yes, absolutely.

Indeed, I’m under no illusion that leaning too hard in one political (for lack of a better word, and dear lord do we ever need a better word) direction would be about as harmful as the other. That’s precisely why it’s paramount for everyone involved to approach one another compassionately as we seek to better ourselves, our lives, and the world. I’m doing that as best I can; can you, Rowling, say the same?