'Calling a man a man is not bullying': JK Rowling doubles down after media outcry over her saying trans soccer coach is a man



Celebrated author of the Harry Potter series J.K. Rowling reiterated her stance after outcry over her remarks describing a man — who is identifying as a woman — as a man.

Rowling has placed herself in the middle of a culture war in defense of women against transgender individuals, whom she has described as being "caricatures" of women.

The author made comments in reference to an English women's soccer coach for Sutton United F.C., who goes by the name Lucy Clark.

Clark is a former referee who has been seen wearing wigs but most recently was pictured with dyed pink hair.

Rowling was responding to a since-deleted post from Pride UK that cited Clark as "the world's first openly transgender referee."

Stating that he has "made history by becoming the first trans manager in the top 5 divisions of English women's football. The former referee has taken over at Sutton United. Fabulous!" it read, followed by gay and transgender pride flags.

"When I was young all the football managers were straight, white, middle-aged blokes, so it's fantastic to see how much things have changed," Rowling wrote in response.

When I was young all the football managers were straight, white, middle-aged blokes, so it's fantastic to see how much things have changed.
— (@)

Rowling doubled down the next day in response to an article from the Daily Mail who said that Rowling was accused of "cruelty" for mocking a "transgender football manager by comparing her to a 'straight, white, middle-aged bloke.'"

In a bare-bones reply, Rowling noted that she wasn't saying he was like a man, but rather that Clark is a man.

"I didn't compare him to one. He IS one," she said on X.

I didn\u2019t compare him to one. He IS one.
— (@)

The 58-year-old continued and responded to allegations that she was bullying the soccer coach.

"Calling a man a man is not 'bullying' or 'punching down.' Crossdressing straight men are currently one of the most pandered-to demographics in existence, and women are under no obligation to applaud the people caricaturing us."

A writer for New York magazine named Jonathan Chait told Rowling to "just call people what they want to be called."

"It's basic decency," he claimed.

"Stop telling women what they're allowed to say, Jonathan. It's basic decency," Rowling replied.

Calling a man a man is not 'bullying' or 'punching down.' Crossdressing straight men are currently one of the most pandered-to demographics in existence, and women are under no obligation to applaud the people caricaturing us.
— (@)
@jonathanchait Stop telling women what they're allowed to say, Jonathan. It's basic decency.
— (@)

Clark spoke to outlet London Football Scene weeks earlier and said at the time that "there was never a transgender referee or manager before" him, "except for two small occasions," and added that the "footballing world" has been great to him since announcing that he believes he's a woman.

Speaking on his appointment to Sutton's managerial role, he said that he "never wanted it to be about" himself and recognized that "it's not personal – it's hatred of the trans community as a whole," he justified.

Shame on @prideukorg for using this photo of Lucy Clark which is causing so much ridicule. A quick search of the internet reveals how beautiful & natural she is when not posing for the camera.
— (@)

"Since when was expressing a biological fact mean or considered mocking? Where did all the 'follow the science' crowd go?" English commentator Lewis Brackpool asked.

Brackpool, who grew up less than an hour from Sutton, told Blaze News that while he has "disagreements with Rowling politically," many on the right "can’t help but notice the vitriol against women for recognizing that cross dressers entering female spaces is not acceptable."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Chris Rufo REVELS in NY mag writer's humiliation after magazine issues 'very embarrassing' correction



Manhattan Institute senior fellow Christopher Rufo celebrated a "win" on Twitter after New York magazine finally issued a correction on an Intelligencer article from April that misquoted him.

"Winning," Rufo wrote. "New York Magazine's @jonathanchait fabricated a quotation in an attempt to smear me, but I caught him red-handed and his editors had to retract the false statement and issue a correction. Very embarrassing for him.

\u201cWinning: New York Magazine's @jonathanchait fabricated a quotation in an attempt to smear me, but I caught him red-handed and his editors had to retract the false statement and issue a correction. Very embarrassing for him.\u201d
— Christopher F. Rufo \u2694\ufe0f (@Christopher F. Rufo \u2694\ufe0f) 1657834203

"Funny how Chait 'misquoted' my remarks using completely different words and changing the entire meaning of my sentences in a way that just so happened to turn me into the villain in his narrative. It's one of our country's greatest ironies that Jonathan Chait's columns appear under the header 'Intelligencer,'" Rufo added.

\u201cIt's one of our country's greatest ironies that Jonathan Chait's columns appear under the header "Intelligencer."\u201d
— Christopher F. Rufo \u2694\ufe0f (@Christopher F. Rufo \u2694\ufe0f) 1657834203

Jonathan Chait, the article's author, was incensed. Apparently, he doesn't consider misquoting a person and intentionally changing the meaning of his words to be all that big a deal. In fact, it was a "minor" mistake, not embarrassing at all, and by the way he has "standards."

"In fact, the misquote said virtually the same thing as the original. The misquote was minor (I will quote both in a follow-up) but we corrected because, unlike Rufo, we have standards.

\u201cIn fact, the misquote said virtually the same thing as the original. The misquote was minor (I will quote both in a follow-up) but we corrected because, unlike Rufo, we have standards.\u201d
— Jonathan Chait (@Jonathan Chait) 1657838373

Rufo was happy to help Chait understand the error of his ways.

"Regime journalism 101: 'Yes, I absolutely fabricated the quotation to push a pre-conceived narrative, but it's not a big deal. Trust me,'" Rufo tweeted, before posting a side-by-side comparison of his actual quote and Chait's misleading version, complete with the explaination:

"On the left is Chait's fabricated quote, which suggests that I 'instructed' conservatives to 'create an atmosphere' of school distrust. On the right is my real quote, which says that teachers unions and school bureaucracies have already created distrust. These are not the same."

\u201cOn the left is Chait's fabricated quote, which suggests that I "instructed" conservatives to "create an atmosphere" of school distrust. On the right is my real quote, which says that teachers unions and school bureaucracies have already created distrust.\n\nThese are not the same.\u201d
— Christopher F. Rufo \u2694\ufe0f (@Christopher F. Rufo \u2694\ufe0f) 1657840213

Nope, these are clearly not the same.


\u201c@morenlh @realchrisrufo "You need to scare people into believing that there could be potholes in every road they drive on."\n\nis not the same as:\n\n"When people notice that they're driving over potholes all the time, remind them that the public works dept. should have filled them."\u201d
— Christopher F. Rufo \u2694\ufe0f (@Christopher F. Rufo \u2694\ufe0f) 1657840213
\u201c@jonathanchait If they said the same thing, you wouldn't have had to retract it. Clearly they are communicating two very different points.\u201d
— Jonathan Chait (@Jonathan Chait) 1657838373
\u201c@jonathanchait Virtually the same thing? Sure. Then in which way(s) was the quote 'virtually' different?\u201d
— Jonathan Chait (@Jonathan Chait) 1657838373
\u201c@jonathanchait Lmao, these are completely different.\n\nThis is like saying "create" and "assume" are the same word.\u201d
— Jonathan Chait (@Jonathan Chait) 1657838373
\u201c@realchrisrufo No they are not the same or even close (if this quote on left, was only lifted from the text on the right). Where does the get the \u201che instructed his audience..? etc\u201d\u201d
— Christopher F. Rufo \u2694\ufe0f (@Christopher F. Rufo \u2694\ufe0f) 1657840213
\u201c@jonathanchait \u201cOperate from a premise of\u201d vs. \u201ccreate an atmosphere of\u201d are quite different things. \n\nThe latter takes an active, primary role; the former simply assumes its presence, which may have arrived from multiple causes.\u201d
— Jonathan Chait (@Jonathan Chait) 1657838373
\u201c@realchrisrufo You know you've made it when they start making shit up about you.\u201d
— Christopher F. Rufo \u2694\ufe0f (@Christopher F. Rufo \u2694\ufe0f) 1657840213
\u201c@jonathanchait If you have standards then why'd you misquote the man in the first place?\u201d
— Jonathan Chait (@Jonathan Chait) 1657838373

Why indeed.


\u201cIt's incredible that Chait boasts about his "standards" in the same tweet in which he admits to fabricating a quotation to push a pre-conceived narrative. This is why the public has zero trust in regime media: lies, hubris, and hypocrisy all wrapped into one.\u201d
— Christopher F. Rufo \u2694\ufe0f (@Christopher F. Rufo \u2694\ufe0f) 1657842498

Rufo recently joined Dave Rubin, Spencer Klavan, and Josh Hammer on “The Rubin Report” to talk about the cost-of-living crisis most Americans are facing and why it’s important to stand up to people like Jonathan Chait or BNC News’ Marc Lamont Hill who try to smear anyone who doesn't share their leftist world view.

Watch the video clip below to hear more from Dave. Can't watch? Download the podcast here.


Want more from Dave Rubin?

To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.