If you go to JKR’s website, scroll down to rumours and misinformation, you get these wonderful questions

@yassie_j let me answer those for you
1. yes
2. no
3. hopefully
4. probably
5. yes
6. evil
7. yes

@mjdxp all answers I agree with

@yassie_j do you have cancer if you *are* cancer

@yassie_j strong why are you asking questions answered by my tshirt energy

@yassie_j iirc she invited epstein to one of her shitty plays in like 2018, well after he was known as the pedo guy. so it’s not something fairly innocent like “attended the same party in 2005”

@yassie_j
1: yes
2: yes
3: okay look, I know, I get it, i wouldn't wish cancer on even my worst enemies, it fucking sucks.... but..., if she DID, I'm not exactly gonna shed a tear for her.
4: Almost certainly yes, not that I know who or what Beira's Place is?
5: why do you think?
6: aaaaand almost certainly - If not, gimme about a week and she will have far worse things in there than mold.

@yassie_j My FAQ has people asking a lot of questions already answered by my FAQ

@yassie_j Site doesn't work for me at all. I think our aggressive network-level adblocking is breaking it. 😂

@yassie_j
THE MOLD THICKENS

@yassie_j @theynege goddammit why am i so curious about the mold in her house now

@jepyang @yassie_j it's transgendered mould using her women-only bathroom.

@yassie_j
i had no idea she had mold in her house

@yassie_j "my t-shirt explaining why I'm in the epstein files has people asking a lot of questions explained by my shirt"

@floppyplopper “I don’t have mold in my house” is a funny thing to have to defend

@theynege @yassie_j hell yeah trans rights

@yassie_j imagine living your life in such a way that you have an FAQ page about this shit

@yassie_j the one about mold caught me off guard lmao

@ignaloidas @yassie_j

They don't understand that nobody outside their dumb little echo chambers take these accusations really seriously. So they think it's hilarious that her website would just calmly refute all the BS.

@taylan oh, look, there’s a terf that decided to show up

If it’s such an obvious BS that nobody takes seriously, why even bother refuting it?

@ignaloidas

Oh god are you also one of those guys screeching about "muh evil women oppressing men"?

Because some people will hear someone screeching on social media and ask themselves wtf that's about. So they can read the FAQ.

@taylan no I’m one of those people who doesn’t think that exclusion is a solution to anything

and JKR is certainly advocating for a whole lot of exclusion

@ignaloidas

There are many cases in life where exclusion is a good solution.

Excluding men from female-only spaces is a good solution to men bothering women.

@taylan for your own very specific definition of women, of course, because why not also exclude people from that 😉

And no, I in fact do not believe that excluding people by gender is a good solution in any case. It’s no different than excluding people by skin color, or religion, or place of birth, etc. This stuff is operating on stereotypes and only stereotypes. If you have to exclude, exclude on based on actions, not based on labels.

It really is just racism in different clothes

@ignaloidas

It's incredible that otherwise smart people can believe something as utterly insane as what you've just said. It's close to being a flat earther.

So you're advocating for the complete abolition of:

* Female-only sports
* Female-only restrooms
* Female-only locker rooms
* Female-only political groups

This is a return to medieval sexism.

Women won't be able partake in sports at all with the exception of a few tiny niches.

Many women will avoid traveling because they'll be scared about what might happen if they need to use the toilet. (See: "urinary leash." Historically known phenomenon before wide availability of female-only restrooms.)

Women generally won't be able to attend swimming pools, gyms, etc. unless they find some safe opportunity to change their clothes, because otherwise they'll need to get naked in front of male strangers.

Women won't be able to challenge any of this because any time they try to organise, men will barge in and say they're plotting evil schemes to exclude men.

This is morally and intellectually on the same level as being a far-right extremist lunatic like Nick Fuentes. Do you not see how utterly insane it is?

By the way, I don't decide who is and isn't a woman. Physical reality does.

I'm not excluding people with penises from whatever word we use to describe people with vulvas. It's a physical reality that these two different types of anatomy exist.

It's also a physical reality that members of the former group have very significant advantage in athletic performance, such that separation in sports becomes necessary if you want people in the latter group to be included in sports.

And it's a social reality that the former group endanger and bother the latter group to such an extent that separation becomes necessary.

You're drunk on insane theories whose application would lead to a complete exclusion of women from public life.

Get out of this extremist echo chamber man.

You're turning left/liberal politics into a fucking joke. This is why society has moved so much to the right, and even women and gay people who care about their rights are going more and more towards "right-wing" politics.

@taylan

So you’re advocating for the complete abolition of:

• Female-only sports

Honestly, I’m against sports in general - at a high level it’s mostly just a dumb competition of genetics in the end, these days training can only bring you to the level your genetics limit you to. And “who won the genetic lottery” is just an awful concept in the end.

• Female-only restrooms

I don’t like traditional gender separated restrooms in general, more private gender neutral restrooms are just better, I’m like 10x more comfortable in them compared to male-only ones.

• Female-only locker rooms

Same argument as with restrooms - give more private, secure spaces and that’s fine. I will be more comfortable too.

• Female-only political groups

Yes. I don’t think it’s healthy, just like male-only political groups aren’t

You’re assuming like I want that these things just disappeared and got replaced with nothing, where in actuality, they can be replaced with better solutions than we have today. The fact that we’re doing things by gender roles these days is the limiting factor on how good things can be.

“Physical reality” is a very fun way to define things, because I haven’t seen anything defining whether some matter is male or female in physics. The “physical reality” is your own definition, just like everything else, you’re just trying to hide behind some “objective” definition to throw labels. Fun exercise: how would “physical reality” define what is a car and what isn’t?

“Social reality” comes into stereotyping. You could make (and some people do make) the same arguments about racial minorities. How is this different from racism again?

@yassie_j it is so funny to me that the mold thing got to her enough to actively mention it in her FAQ lmao

@mia “nobody asked, but I don’t have mold”

@yassie_j this is answering questions that no one even asked yet

@yassie_j Oh yeah completely normal sections to add on your personal website. I’m sure everyone has sections like these on their website.

@yassie_j I like how the answer to whether she's transphobic is transphobic

"She wants trans women to be safe but not to the detriment of natal girls and women’s safety and for their rights to single sex spaces to remain protected"

Aka, "She wants women to be safe but not to the detriment of women's safety" unless, of course, you are transphobic

I also like how the Epstein one admits that he was invited to the guest list but claims it was an accident

@yassie_j

1. yes
2. yes
3. I hope so
4. dunno anything about this
5. yes
6. yes
7. yes

@yassie_j Now on the Web Archive!

https://web.archive.org/web/20260915185024/https://www.jkrowling.com/faqs/

braces for legal threats

@yassie_j does J.K. Rowling cause cancer?