[the broken]

Quote

'Lechsinka Polish name'

So I did, that, you know what comes up?

My linkhttps://www.babynamespedia.com/meaning/Lechsinska

Not the same, but close enough for a plausible misspelling.

[polishgenius]

 the broken, on 16 March 2023 - 12:24 PM, said:

Quote

'Lechsinka Polish name'

So I did, that, you know what comes up?

My linkhttps://www.babynamespedia.com/meaning/Lechsinska

Not the same, but close enough for a plausible misspelling.

That wasn't added to that database by a Polish person, and the reason I know that is it posits two different pronunciations- not possible in Polish, a phonetically rendered language- neither of which are anywhere close to how you'd pronounce 'Lechsinska' written down. Also, adding that second s makes it sound like a surname.

Also because googling it gives that answer and another different babyname database (which gives a frankly implausble etymology of it meaning 'wood nymph'), but not one single example, current or historical, of someone actually called that.

Seriously, call me nitpicky if you wish, say it doesn't matter if you wish, those are fair positions. Stop trying to convince a Polish speaker that you understand it better than I do.

 QuickTidal, on 16 March 2023 - 12:07 PM, said:

See but I take issue with this concept. The idea that someone does something people don't like, means it's open season to nitpick the hell out of their entire career and basically bury them under it? Like come on. That's GishGalloping. Just move from thing you deem a problem to thing you deem a problem so there's enough to basically write them off forever. I get that people are annoyed by the Trans issue with her, but everything else is an attempt to help justify the level of unbelievable toxicity aimed at her by saying "See, she ALSO did all this, she's evil!"

Yeah well as I say I don't personally think she was being racist or deliberate with any of the other stuff but I don't blame people who do. And I don't see why they shouldn't, really- if someone shows themselves to be bigoted in one arena, and willing to engage with people who are bigoted on everything, why wouldn't people start to look back and doubt her intentions all along?



That becomes even more stark when you see the stuff she's said in the last couple of days. How are you meant to separate art from the artist when she's actively smashing the art together with what she's standing for now?

https://twitter.com/...049640897363969


https://twitter.com/...935195432992768


Just to be clear: what she's doing there is comparing the trans rights movement to Nazis. Because that's what the Death Eaters are. But, in doing so, she's asking us to reframe how we read Death Eaters, to believe all along they were meant to be outsiders fighting to exist (evilly, but to exist).

This post has been edited by polishgenius: 16 March 2023 - 04:18 PM

[Maark Abbott]

Rowling is very much a proponent of the Trump style of PR - say the most horrific stuff, the bigliest stuff, as long as it hurts the groups she hates.

She's a vile bigot and frankly that should be clear for all to see. And like PG says above, it's entirely valid to question her intentions elsewhere when she's actively courting the nastiest elements of the right wing.

[QuickTidal]

 Maark Abbott, on 16 March 2023 - 04:42 PM, said:

Rowling is very much a proponent of the Trump style of PR - say the most horrific stuff, the bigliest stuff, as long as it hurts the groups she hates.

She's a vile bigot and frankly that should be clear for all to see. And like PG says above, it's entirely valid to question her intentions elsewhere when she's actively courting the nastiest elements of the right wing.

?

I felt the interview was actually pretty nuanced with her takes (even if you consider them wrong), and none of it was particularly "the most horrific stuff"...more of just her entrenched opinion as a 65+ year old woman who's struggled with the patriarchy her whole life, and calls out the disingenuousness of the lack of nuance to the conversation as a whole in favour of slinging deliberately black and white mud....cause that's easier I guess?

And in one section she literally says "Time will tell whether I've got this wrong. I can only say that I've thought about it deeply and hard and long. And I've listened, I promise, to the other side"...Trump would never say anything anywhere near that conciliatory if he was debating someone. EVER. If anything, this should be telling to people that over time maybe she'll actually get it, no?

Those don't sound Trumplike to me, they sound like someone who truly believes that she's supporting women, and is not anti-trans from her POV, but does in instances try to see what the other side is seeing in her views that are bad.

 Maark Abbott, on 16 March 2023 - 04:42 PM, said:

the groups she hates

Sorry, groups plural? I know you think she hates Trans people....but are there others? I thought she was pretty progressive on most other topics, and it was only the Trans community that she was deemed offsides on.

[polishgenius]

Yeah, I don't think she's Trumpian. Unlike QT I'm not particularly keen to give her the benefit of the doubt as to her motives- I think she's rather the opposite, in that for a long time deliberately avoided saying anything direct, instead slinging indirect insults, false concerns and linking with people who had said worse but always with the plausible deniability of 'I didn't know'. But she doesn't just say whatever.


Even in these podcasts, even though she is being fairly direct about it, she's avoiding nailing down why she thinks it's fair to deny trans people their rights in response to vague fears about violence that, let's be clear, even in her concerns is mostly about cis men and not trans people (not that there being violent trans people is a good reason to deny all trans people their rights, but even the bigots know that that scenario is rare enough and easy to deal with enough that it becomes about 'men in women's spaces'). Like, she's still not saying too much you can directly challenge her on. It's all 'oh there's this big evil movement looking to destroy feminism'. How trans people do this... isn't clear.

[QuickTidal]

 polishgenius, on 16 March 2023 - 06:05 PM, said:

Yeah, I don't think she's Trumpian. Unlike QT I'm not particularly keen to give her the benefit of the doubt as to her motives- I think she's rather the opposite, in that for a long time deliberately avoided saying anything direct, instead slinging indirect insults, false concerns and linking with people who had said worse but always with the plausible deniability of 'I didn't know'. But she doesn't just say whatever.

I should be clear, I don't think I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt either...I'm simply saying I can see how a 65 year old Boomer would come to the conclusions she has that we don't, and why it would be hard for her to see it in a more progressive way. Not that it's right, or we should not get on her about that....but that portion of the conversation is entirely missing in the wider debates, and I feel they are very relevant to the conversation, because if you refuse to look at it through that lens, you will just see her as appearing evil out the ether in 2013 (or whenever it was), which does the conversation zero favours.

[polishgenius]

Fair enough.

My problem is that I understand initially going 'aaaaaaaa I don't understand', and even feeling under threat.

But she's had ample time to reflect and she's only ever strengthened her stance, which is what's angering to me.

And saddening, tbh.

[the broken]

I mean you literally said that googling a specific search would have revealed that that was a fake name, so I googled your suggested search term and the first non JKR related thing that comes up is something mistakenly suggesting it was a real name. So the '30 seconds of googling approach would have led JKR to make the exact mistake she did. It's not to say it is correct Polish, just that it was a plausible mistake for an English speaker without needing to be some kind of deliberate insult.

[polishgenius]

I mean, okay, fair enough, in a totally literal sense I was wrong. In an actual practical sense I was right, though, because a google that reveals two unsourced websites and literally no other usage of it in history does in fact reveal it's not a real name.

[Mentalist]

 polishgenius, on 16 March 2023 - 04:10 PM, said:

 the broken, on 16 March 2023 - 12:24 PM, said:

Quote

'Lechsinka Polish name'

So I did, that, you know what comes up?

My linkhttps://www.babynamespedia.com/meaning/Lechsinska

Not the same, but close enough for a plausible misspelling.

That wasn't added to that database by a Polish person, and the reason I know that is it posits two different pronunciations- not possible in Polish, a phonetically rendered language- neither of which are anywhere close to how you'd pronounce 'Lechsinska' written down. Also, adding that second s makes it sound like a surname.

Also because googling it gives that answer and another different babyname database (which gives a frankly implausble etymology of it meaning 'wood nymph'), but not one single example, current or historical, of someone actually called that.

Seriously, call me nitpicky if you wish, say it doesn't matter if you wish, those are fair positions. Stop trying to convince a Polish speaker that you understand it better than I do.

 QuickTidal, on 16 March 2023 - 12:07 PM, said:

See but I take issue with this concept. The idea that someone does something people don't like, means it's open season to nitpick the hell out of their entire career and basically bury them under it? Like come on. That's GishGalloping. Just move from thing you deem a problem to thing you deem a problem so there's enough to basically write them off forever. I get that people are annoyed by the Trans issue with her, but everything else is an attempt to help justify the level of unbelievable toxicity aimed at her by saying "See, she ALSO did all this, she's evil!"

Yeah well as I say I don't personally think she was being racist or deliberate with any of the other stuff but I don't blame people who do. And I don't see why they shouldn't, really- if someone shows themselves to be bigoted in one arena, and willing to engage with people who are bigoted on everything, why wouldn't people start to look back and doubt her intentions all along?



That becomes even more stark when you see the stuff she's said in the last couple of days. How are you meant to separate art from the artist when she's actively smashing the art together with what she's standing for now?

https://twitter.com/...049640897363969


https://twitter.com/...935195432992768


Just to be clear: what she's doing there is comparing the trans rights movement to Nazis. Because that's what the Death Eaters are. But, in doing so, she's asking us to reframe how we read Death Eaters, to believe all along they were meant to be outsiders fighting to exist (evilly, but to exist).

That is absolutely a surname, one which is (likely) a Ukrainian rendition of the female version of the approximation of the surname of the pretender to the Polish throne during the Great Northern War. Done poorly.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

 Lady Bliss, on 03 April 2026 - 08:27 PM, said:

 Azath Vitr (D, on 03 April 2026 - 03:40 PM, said:

 QuickTidal, on 01 April 2026 - 12:40 PM, said:

 Azath Vitr (D, on 01 April 2026 - 12:36 PM, said:

Of course, that doesn't make her a "man", but it may give her a biological advantage.

Granted, this is getting off-topic, and I think I vaguely remember her saying more obviously transphobic things, but I don't think she's at the same level of duplicity as Trump or the same level of ignorance as most of MAGA. ... which isn't saying much.

I'm going to let you research how bad both these things actually sound, and decides whether or not to delete it...

Jeezus

This is getting very off-topic, so I'll post any future replies in the old Is JK Rowling Satan, Or Just a Demon? Hogwarts Legacy thread where we were discussing Rowling's transphobia before:

https://forum.malaza...cy-controversy/

In terms of testosterone levels, Khelif went through the hormonal equivalent of male puberty and had male levels of testosterone through much of her adult life, including years of weightlifting and other physical training as an elite athlete. If Khelif were not taking testosterone suppressants then she would most likely have an advantage comparable to that of male elite athletes.

The main argument for Khelif not having an advantage seems to rest on studies which found no statistically significant difference in functional strength between trans women and ciswomen. One problem with those studies is that they're very low quality, with extremely small sample sizes and non-rigorous methodologies. In particular, while it is possible to measure voluntary exertion, they fail to do so; and yet they rely on voluntary exertion in their tests of functional strength. The trans test subjects also almost certainly realized that the test results would be used as evidence to determine whether trans women should be allowed to compete in women's sports.

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/60/3/198

And more rigorous studies indicate that testosterone suppression only results in a small reduction in lean muscle mass after one year (about 5%). Large, rigorous studies have demonstrated that lean muscle mass correlates with functional strength. Taken together, this stronger evidence seems to contradict the extremely low quality studies which found no statistically significant difference in functional strength.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC7846503/

However, there is also low quality evidence suggesting that after several years the percentage of lean muscle mass relative to total weight has no statistically significant difference from that of ciswomen. (The phrase "statistically significant" can be misleading in this context: the experimental design is not strong enough to rule out large statistical differences.) This can be reconciled with a small decrease in absolute lean muscle mass by an increase in fat. And since boxing has weight classes, this does provide weak evidence for Khelif not having an advantage. However, none of these studies were done on elite athletes, who tend to work to have extremely low levels of body fat, particularly in sports with weight classes.

So the evidence ultimately isn't definitive, but it's plausible that she has a significant advantage. I stand by my initial assertion that she may have a biological advantage.

https://www.sciencem...isgender-women/

On the roots of JKR's transphobia:

https://secularhuman...athroom-debate/

TL;DR trauma from sexual assault leading to misdirected fear for others.

Did she take steroids or is this a genetic problem caused by XXY chromosomes

According to a leaked medical report, she has

Quote

5-alpha reductase type-2 deficiency – with XY chromosomes, internal testes and a "micropenis."

A hormone test showed a "male-type testosterone level of 14.7," the French story said, "while the female gender does not exceed the maximum level of 3."

As an official U.S. government website, the National Library of Medicine, explains, many people with 5-alpha reductase are "assigned female at birth"

https://www.3wirespo...23hnfdrsbi1sqjm

I forgot to mention that there's been no mention of her taking estrogen, just testosterone suppressants. The increased fat in trans women in the studies in question is probably largely due to taking estrogen. So that weakens the case for applying the (already very weak) evidence for no relative lean muscle mass (percentage) advantage among trans women after several years of hormone therapy to her (and of course she's not trans, having been assigned female at birth). However, if those results end up holding up for elite athletes who take estrogen as well as testosterone suppressants but not those who only take testosterone suppressants, then the IOC might be persuaded to reconsider their ruling for sports with weight classes provided that athletes like Khelif with the SRY-gene take estrogen as well.

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 03 April 2026 - 09:29 PM

[amphibian]

QuickTidal, on 16 March 2023 - 06:31 PM, said:

polishgenius, on 16 March 2023 - 06:05 PM, said:

Yeah, I don't think she's Trumpian. Unlike QT I'm not particularly keen to give her the benefit of the doubt as to her motives- I think she's rather the opposite, in that for a long time deliberately avoided saying anything direct, instead slinging indirect insults, false concerns and linking with people who had said worse but always with the plausible deniability of 'I didn't know'. But she doesn't just say whatever.

I should be clear, I don't think I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt either...I'm simply saying I can see how a 65 year old Boomer would come to the conclusions she has that we don't, and why it would be hard for her to see it in a more progressive way. Not that it's right, or we should not get on her about that....but that portion of the conversation is entirely missing in the wider debates, and I feel they are very relevant to the conversation, because if you refuse to look at it through that lens, you will just see her as appearing evil out the ether in 2013 (or whenever it was), which does the conversation zero favours.

I do think she has sorta "garden variety white British" bigotry going on in regards to brown and black people in real life and within her books. That's not moved past general disregard/disrespect in written form, so it's less discussed.

My view is that she's a bigot with an absolute hard on for publicly repressing trans people that she just won't let go of, while being much quieter about the other types of bigotry that she probably does generally believe in.

[polishgenius]

I didn't see this discussion as it was happening on Khelif, but as someone who follows boxing a lot and saw her box at the games:


if she has 'male advantage', it's very minimal, so much so that it's essentially irrelevant. Her fighting her competitors looks nothing at all like a man fighting women would look- she isn't unusually strong, fast or powerful for a woman in her weight class and is in fact less so than other woman fighters.


If the rules say that someone with her alleged condition (it should not fail to be remembered that the organisation who initially failed her is comically, grotesquely corrupt, has been removed from administrating boxing at the Olympics, and even the application of that supposed failed test didn't follow any application of their own rules, and the other boxer at those Olympics with the same controversy has now been cleared to fight under the new rules of the new organisation, so I'm gonna be sceptical until she takes a test administered by someone else, but let's operate under that assumption) can't box then it's something she's gonna have to deal with, but it simply isn't the case that she has a huge physical advantage that's insurmountable for or dangerous to her opponents, and the idea that it is is something created by bigots and spread by people who don't watch boxing, didn't watch a single second of Khelif apart from that moment Carrini quit, and don't understand fight sports.

As an illustration, here is Khelif fighting:






Here is Albina Moldozhanova, a woman in the same division (albeit fighting here as a pro), who has no controversy or hint of a question about whether she has any kind of condition that would give her male advantage:


https://youtu.be/P1vOGs3WQOE?t=163


That just isn't what a man, or someone with all the physical, athletic advantages of being a man, fighting a woman, would look like.








Separately to all that: regardless of what one believes about the situation around Khelif, Rowling's language and demeanour when talking about Khelif, and about trans people, has been vile. In fact as QT was pointing out in the other thread Rowling has been weaponising her demonisation of Khalif - not trans, but now stigmatised to a certain crowd- against trans people. It's awful.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

polishgenius, on 05 April 2026 - 06:54 PM, said:

I didn't see this discussion as it was happening on Khelif, but as someone who follows boxing a lot and saw her box at the games:


if she has 'male advantage', it's very minimal, so much so that it's essentially irrelevant. Her fighting her competitors looks nothing at all like a man fighting women would look- she isn't unusually strong, fast or powerful for a woman in her weight class and is in fact less so than other woman fighters.


If the rules say that someone with her alleged condition (it should not fail to be remembered that the organisation who initially failed her is comically, grotesquely corrupt, has been removed from administrating boxing at the Olympics, and even the application of that supposed failed test didn't follow any application of their own rules, and the other boxer at those Olympics with the same controversy has now been cleared to fight under the new rules of the new organisation, so I'm gonna be sceptical until she takes a test administered by someone else, but let's operate under that assumption) can't box then it's something she's gonna have to deal with, but it simply isn't the case that she has a huge physical advantage that's insurmountable for or dangerous to her opponents, and the idea that it is is something created by bigots and spread by people who don't watch boxing, didn't watch a single second of Khelif apart from that moment Carrini quit, and don't understand fight sports.

As an illustration, here is Khelif fighting:


https://www.youtube....h?v=QcGxllHYySc



Here is Albina Moldozhanova, a woman in the same division (albeit fighting here as a pro), who has no controversy or hint of a question about whether she has any kind of condition that would give her male advantage:


https://youtu.be/P1vOGs3WQOE?t=163


That just isn't what a man, or someone with all the physical, athletic advantages of being a man, fighting a woman, would look like.

Separately to all that: regardless of what one believes about the situation around Khelif, Rowling's language and demeanour when talking about Khelif, and about trans people, has been vile. In fact as QT was pointing out in the other thread Rowling has been weaponising her demonisation of Khalif - not trans, but now stigmatised to a certain crowd- against trans people. It's awful.

As mentioned in the other thread, she admitted to having the SRY-gene and using testosterone suppressants in an interview with Le Monde:

Boxer Imane Khelif says she took hormone treatment to lower testosterone before Paris Olympics

The video you posted of her is not playing in my region. While I used to watch combat sports, including countless hours of boxing when I was a child, I've generally found boxing to be one of the least interesting (with the exception of a few fighters with exciting or interesting styles), despite the high level of athleticism; and amateur boxing's focus on points tends to make it especially boring. I'll grant I haven't watched any of her fights, except for a brief snippet of Carrini quiting. Interesting point about her not blatantly overpowering her opponents---though Khelif certainly realizes that if she blatantly displays superior strength and (the best-fitting English word here would be "manhandles" but I want to be clear I'm not using it in the sort of derogatory way Rowlings refers to her as a "man") physically dominates her opponents then it may undermine her claim to not have an advantage because of her condition.

And yes obviously Rowling's abusive and derogatory language towards her and towards trans people is vile and intended to incite bigotry.

[polishgenius]

She also said she has female hormones in that interview. So fair enough she almost certainly has something going on medically but that quote isn't enough to say that whatever she has is enough to fail the standards, then or now, of competing in boxing contests.

Azath Vitr (D, on 05 April 2026 - 07:50 PM, said:

I'll grant I haven't watched any of her fights, except for a brief snippet of Carrini quiting. Interesting point about her not blatantly overpowering her opponents---though Khelif certainly realizes that if she blatantly displays superior strength and (the best-fitting English word here would be "manhandles" but I want to be clear I'm not using it in the sort of derogatory way Rowlings refers to her as a "man") physically dominates her opponents then it may undermine her claim to not have an advantage because of her condition.

This would require me to believe that through her whole career (I've watched a few of her fights) that Khelif was so carefully able to control her strength that she wasn't blasting her opponents out even when she did appear to be sitting down on her punches, but forgot herself one time and damaged Carrini with a nothing shot.

That Carrini got into her own head because she'd been told beforehand that Khelif had failed those tests and freaked out over a weird, painful, but not especially notable connection is a way more plausible explanation to me.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

polishgenius, on 05 April 2026 - 08:13 PM, said:

She also said she has female hormones in that interview. So fair enough she almost certainly has something going on medically but that quote isn't enough to say that whatever she has is enough to fail the standards, then or now, of competing in boxing contests.

The IOC tests for the SRY gene. She says she has the SRY gene.

The statement "I have female hormones" is ambiguous---she may be referring to testosterone levels, or she might also mean estrogen, even though she only mentions taking testosterone suppressants, and the condition in her leaked medical report would not give her female levels of estrogen. Or perhaps she's referring to her testosterone to estrogen ratio.

polishgenius, on 05 April 2026 - 08:13 PM, said:

Azath Vitr (D, on 05 April 2026 - 07:50 PM, said:

I'll grant I haven't watched any of her fights, except for a brief snippet of Carrini quiting. Interesting point about her not blatantly overpowering her opponents---though Khelif certainly realizes that if she blatantly displays superior strength and (the best-fitting English word here would be "manhandles" but I want to be clear I'm not using it in the sort of derogatory way Rowlings refers to her as a "man") physically dominates her opponents then it may undermine her claim to not have an advantage because of her condition.

This would require me to believe that through her whole career (I've watched a few of her fights) that Khelif was so carefully able to control her strength that she wasn't blasting her opponents out even when she did appear to be sitting down on her punches, but forgot herself one time and damaged Carrini with a nothing shot.

That Carrini got into her own head because she'd been told beforehand that Khelif had failed those tests and freaked out over a weird, painful, but not especially notable connection is a way more plausible explanation to me.

You've watched a few of her fights, but you haven't watched her through her whole career.

And many elite level female boxers may have used steroids or other PEDs to build up relative lean muscle mass and myonuclei before going off them to enter elite competition.