Rowling, in your own words, didn’t want “her term” used in this activism. HER term. Hers — as she defines what is acceptable terminology.

Moreover, Trans people — both trans men and trans women — have been marginalized, criminalized, and killed for existing for as long as human cultures have existed.

Yes. It would be great IF “we all who are marginalized” would seek to help and understand, and “refrain from attacking each other.” No one sensible condones death threats.

However, I’ve read Rowling’s comments. They do not justify her continuing stance on this. What she refuses to understand — and what it seems you do not understand — is the reasons that phraseology “people who menstruate” was used. It was never about erasing the term “woman.” It was about erasing the tired old trope which trans women have had flung at their heads, ad nauseam; they cannot be “real” women because they have not and never will menstruate.

If that trope is going to be used to deny trans women their identity, then trans women have the right to activism for expanding the definition to include their identity.

To say you cannot be a “real” woman if you don’t shed the uterine lining by bleeding every month — again — places all the onus of womanhood on the ability to procreate because only women who have normal menses will be able to do so. It negates womanhood for any woman who cannot menstruate, from natural hermaphroditism to health related issues to menopause — and transitioned or transitioning trans women.

It is likely not her intent any more than it is your own; I fully believe that it’s not her intent. Still, THAT is the context of the argument against which Rowling’s commentary incites the nonacceptance of the trans being permitted to be “woman.” It endangers the trans community by empowering the hate behind and sexism behind that old trope. Why is this the hill upon which she chooses to fall?