no1curr: WTF did I just read?

Okay, what the author is tryingto do is argue that JK Rowling is actively anti-Transgender.  TERF is "Trans-Exclusive Radical Feminist", which is an acronym extremely stupid people use to refer to the rather fine distinction between proponents of womens' rights who are indifferent to whether Trans women can benefit from the legal protections for women or not.  While this isn't necessarily a philosophically invalid line to draw, and the argument over whether people who never suffered the relevant systemic setbacks that diversity initiatives are intended to counter actually merit those benefits is certainly an argument you can have over a beer or whatever... in practical terms this is a group that exists solely within the minds of idiots on TUMBLR.  The sheer vanishingly diminutive slice of the population involved in crossover between feminist issues and trans issues is in practical terms more properly just handled on a case by case basis.

What the author is actually doing is trying to accuse Rowling of some kind of "leftist heresy" to raise a figurative lynch mob, on the grounds of her hitting the like button on some random article that included some sort of incidental mention of the moot nonsense above, or at least implied such in the fevered imagination of TFAuthor's obsession causing her to see it in everything, all the time.  Notably this attempt is unsuccessful, because that's farking stupid.

So... basically it's a whole lot of nothing to the point that even if I successfully explained it (which I'm not entirely sure I did, given how meaningless this is) and you successfully comprehended it, your time both reading TFA and having it explained has still been wasted in its entirety and nothing of value was gained.  I'm sorry.

// The entire TERF distinction hinges on a critical failure to even understand how nondiscrimination rules and protected classes are structured to work in the first place; typical nondiscrimination laws and civil rules in both the US and the UK provide blanket-protection to classes, so an actual male-identifying man with a Y chromosome and everything could potentially sue or seek redress for actual offenses under any law that a woman, trans or otherwise, could.  While there certainly have been exceptions... generally arguing over this would be a stupid incremental step that's automatically bypassed by the logical larger reform.  E.g. should trans women be allowed marriage rights?  Doesn't farking matter, marriage reform means that no matter what the law "really" thinks your gender is you can now get married to your partner regardless.  Problem solved, quit bothering us.