You said the quiet part out loud again. The only reason to be unwilling to enter a conversation at all is if you know you have no argument.
The point, obviously, is that if you can be a woman just by claiming to be one, you should be able to be non-transphobic just by claiming to be.
She hasn't said anything unreasonable, she's just being attacked for not joining a modern day internet cult.
Imagine if someone claimed those things about being homosexual: it's down to biology who you have sex with, not preference; it's not safe to allow homosexuals into a bathroom with people they are attracted to; teenagers should not have access to information about homosexuality; homosexuality is a social trend and not a personal choice. I would, very rightly so, be labeled a homophobic.
The only reason you might think she isn't transphobic is that if you, yourself, are transphobic and don't want that label to apply to yourself. Unfortunately, bigotry is bigotry.
Another reason is that everything under the sun gets called transphobic. Maybe JK is a hateful person... I don't know, but I do know this word gets thrown around like feces in a chimp fight.
That's absurd. Plenty of conversations are in bad faith. You wouldn't hold a conversation with me if I just sat here swearing at you. I've held plenty of productive conversations on this topic, but I've also ignored plenty of people who clearly didn't intend to engage in good faith. If you feel obliged to argue with a stone, that's on you, but some of us have better things to do with our time.
> The point, obviously, is that if you can be a woman just by claiming to be one, you should be able to be non-transphobic just by claiming to be.
If you dress like a non-transphobic person and act like a non-transphobic person for years, and get a government certificate accompanied by a doctor's note that you're not trans-phobic, and you've been taking anti-transphobia medication for years... well why in the world would that NOT be sufficient?