Lot of attention being drawn to Rowling's claim that she "might have tried to transition" if she knew about it when she was younger. It's an intriguing claim that mirrors a lot of AFAB transphobes' anxious quasi-identification with transness, BUT,

I do want to remind everyone that a sincere belief that womanhood/femininity is an unfortunate thing to be tolerated only and manhood/masculinity is good and naturally desired is a core tenet of transmisogyny, older than bio essentialist notions of gender.

Which is to say that it doesn't *necessarily* mean these people are latent trans mascs (although maybe!), but rather that they've drunk fully from the cup of a hierarchical understanding of gender that has been the foundation of transmisogyny for, idk, millennia?

Not so coincidentally, this is the thing that drives trans femme "visibility." Trans masculinity is often perceived as an understandable, even natural delusion whereas trans femininity is seen as deranged and perverse.

That being said, maybe a lot of transphobes *are* trans masc eggs idk. I just want to make sure it's clear that this is all how transmisogyny works at its very core, that there's more happening here than *just* a potentially internalized transphobia.

Sorry, just gotta reiterate something I said yesterday. We don't need to "understand" Rowling. There is nothing intellectually complex or even very new happening in that essay. Listen to trans women.