Skip to content

This is one that’s gonna get lost

JK Rowling has been reported to the police by trans broadcaster India Willoughby over “misgendering” on social media.

The Harry Potter author became embroiled in an online row with India Willoughby, in which she referred to the transgender newsreader, Loose Women host and former Big Brother contestant as a “man” and with “he” pronouns.

Willoughby, who was born male and underwent gender reassignment surgery in 2015, made a complaint to police over Rowling’s posts on X, formerly Twitter, claiming she had “definitely committed a crime”.

The broadcaster, who holds a gender recognition certificate, claimed to be “legally a woman”, although Rowling pointed out there was no law which compelled her to “pretend” that Willoughby was a woman.

This isn’t going to end up in charges against JK now, is it? Sure, there might be some idiot plod who’d try it on with Miss Normie, but noitwith JK. But that then sets the standard, the treatment of JK….

26 thoughts on “This is one that’s gonna get lost”

  1. Bloke in North Dorset

    Jordan Peterson’s compelled speech argument. It was easy for progressives to dismiss him as a right wing nut job and so drown out his point, but as you say, they won’t get away with it with JK Rowling.

  2. At worst it’s vulgar abuse, no different from calling Michael Gove a big girl’s blouse.

  3. Willyboy has bitten off far more than he can chew this time.

    I must remember to save that video that was doing the rounds yesterday on Twitter of a pitbull taking on a wild buffalo. I think it’ll come in handy in the future

  4. The broadcaster, who holds a gender recognition certificate, claimed to be “legally a woman”

    ALLO, POLICE? I’VE GOT ME LADY CERTIFICATE…

    She said that should she be approached by police, she would explain that

    If I was approached by police, I would explain that they can arrest me or beat it. Other than that, don’t talk to coppers, kiddos – they’re not on your side.

  5. This could end really badly for an establishment that kowtows to a tiny vociferous minority while ignoring the fact that millions of young and not so young people are huge fans and more importantly agree with every based word she says.

  6. “Jordan Peterson’s compelled speech argument”.. was bollocks and in the many years since the relevant law was passed in Canada a grand total of no people have been compelled to say anything or faced legal consequences for not doing so.

    Obviously the police should take no action against Rowling. She is being an areshole, not a criminal.

  7. “Jordan Peterson’s compelled speech argument”.. was bollocks and in the many years since the relevant law was passed in Canada a grand total of no people have been compelled to say anything or faced legal consequences for not doing so.

    You’re a liar.

    Canadian man jailed for calling his biologically female child as ‘daughter’

    In a tragic case, a man in Canada was jailed for referring to his biological female child as ‘daughter’. Robert Hoogland, a father of a teenage girl, has been jailed by a Canadian court for calling his biological female child his “daughter,” and referring to her with the pronouns “she” and “her.” Hoogland was found to be in contempt of court.

    At the heart of Hoogland’s miseries is a gender non-conforming 14-year-old biological female who identifies as transgender and prefers the use of male pronouns. Hoogland repeatedly called the person as his daughter, even after court proscribed him from doing it.

    As a result, the Attorney General of British Columbia issued an arrest warrant for contempt, following which Hoogland surrendered himself to the court on Tuesday at 10 am. He was arrested and taken to jail.

    In December 2020, Hoogland was forced by a collude to conform to his daughter’s gender “transitioning” and told him to not call his biological female child his daughter. In response, Hoogland made a Charter challenge engaging his right to freedom of speech.

  8. Steve

    He was jailed for contempt of court. The court told him to stop discussing his child’s situation with the media, and he did not.

    I hold my hands up if it all centred on pronouns, but it looks more like it was a guy who was told to STFU and stop trying to drag his child through a media circus that neither the child nor the rest of the family wanted. I can see why that might be something a court would want to do.

  9. Oh, I do so hope some idiot actually tries to charge, or even arrest, Rowling on that…
    It’ll be hilarious to see what happens if they do…

    Now.. what are the popcorn futures doing?

  10. Nathan – Robert Hoogland is a father who discovered that a Canadian state school was – without his knowledge or consent – encouraging his 12 year old mentally ill daughter to “change sex” and take male hormones.

    As her father, he tried to save his daughter by petitioning a court to uphold his parental right to withhold consent for “gender transition” treatments, which have no basis in medical science and which leave young women permanently barren and mutilated, along with a host of other serious medical problems such as osteoporosis.

    This is how the Canadian courts reacted:

    That wasn’t all. Bowden placed remarkable restrictions on Hoogland. He was forbidden to try to persuade A.B. to stop treatment. He was forbidden to address her by her birth name. He was forbidden, in any conversation with anyone, to refer to her as a girl or to use female pronouns to describe her. If he were to do any of these things, ordered Bowden, it would be “considered to be family violence”—yes, violence—under the Family Law Act.

    This is indefensible and inhuman, and anyone who would defend it deserves to be tied to a millstone and thrown into the sea.

  11. Hmm Steve provides the evidence of compelled speech on the basis of a court’s decision, father decides not to comply and goes to jail for breaching the order of the court.

    That’s about as clear a case of compelled speech leading to jail as one can get. Nathan? Nathan?

  12. Bloke in North Dorset

    Just seen the X thread, she doesn’t mess about:

    https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1765516978314219723?s=61&t=VX5cJ0-osgn_JSz7j-uowQ

    She concludes:

    “ Aware as I am that it’s an offence to lie to law enforcement, I’ll simply have to explain to the police that, in my view, India is a classic example of the male narcissist who lives in a state of perpetual rage that he can’t compel women to take him at his own valuation. 5/5”

    And Willoughby is shown to be quite a nasty piece of work. There’s at least one trans guy in the comments supporting JKR.

  13. Bloke n North Dorset

    “Jordan Peterson’s compelled speech argument”.. was bollocks
    Peterson’s argument was that he was prepared to be polite and use preferred pronouns but if the state made it a legal requirement he would refuse.

    That was what caused the outrage, not whether the proposed law was or was not compelled speech.

  14. Willoughby could get her revenge by misgendering JK. Perhaps also by calling her by a male name. I would suggest “Robert”.

  15. wiiloughby was quite nasty to someone on a reality tv show who mistakenly used the wrong pronoun while Willoughby was talking about transitioning. Seemed to take delight in reducing a pensioner to tears over a genuine slip and showed what themselves to be a nasty piece of work.

  16. “ Hmm Steve provides the evidence of compelled speech on the basis of a court’s decision, father decides not to comply and goes to jail for breaching the order of the court.

    That’s about as clear a case of compelled speech leading to jail as one can get. Nathan? Nathan?”

    Steve provides evidence of restricted speech, not compelled speech. He was told to STFU. It is, quite literally, the opposite of what you are saying.

    I make no case for it being a reasonable restriction of speech. The Jordan Peterson argument, however, doesn’t apply even in this one case and the law has, quite obviously, not had the dystopian consequences predicted.

  17. The C 16 law certainly looks like a dog’s dinner. I’m not surprised very few people have fallen foul of it as the hundreds of basically mythical personal pronouns seem to be withering on the vine. I work in a US company and very few people use ‘Ze’ or some such absurdity and if anyone does it’s ordinarily a red flag to avoid having anything to do with them wherever possible. However, the court did compel him to refer to his daughter as a ‘he’ – despite her clearly being manipulated by people who are amongst the most monstrous and amoral ever to walk the earth. Surely that’s the key point. What kind of person would defend that to any degree?

    All 67 representatives who voted for the bill and any judge deciding to uphold it deserve to be dangling from a lamp post, and given Hamas’ current level of support in Canada, The US and UK, what’s disturbing for supporters of the logic behind it is they don’t realise that once radical Islam takes over they will be hanging – quite literally.

  18. A judge saying a parent misgendenering a child is an act of violence under the Families act is not. STFU it’s a warning to all parents of trans claiming kids that they have to affirm their gender or face legal repercussions which amounts to compelled speech.
    Depending on your job it could also have significant impact on your ability to work as criminal records checks for health, education or any public sector job would stop the hiring process in its tracks

  19. Nathan – you seem to have missed the bit where he was forbidden from referring to his own child as a girl, use female pronouns, or even use their birth name. This is all laid out in the court record of “A.B. v. C.D. and E.F.”, docket #E190334 on the British Columbia courts web site:

    [21] This Court has already determined that it is a form of family violence to AB for any of his family members to address him by his birth name, refer to him as a girl or with female pronouns (whether to him directly or to third parties), or to attempt to persuade him to abandon treatment for gender dysphoria. AB says that the evidence establishes that CD has done all of the above, and has continued to do so even after the Court found that these actions were contrary to AB’s best interests and constitute family violence.

    I suppose you could argue that the judgement as written does not compel the father to refer to his child as a boy or use male pronouns (they/them/it perhaps?), but that would be clutching at straws IMHO.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *