My hot take on this - if you viewpoint aligns with the Trump administration (who have done everything they can to dismantle trans rights, including a recent judgement by AG Barr), then that’s probably a sign you’re doing something horribly, horribly wrong.

I noticed she specifically refers to this as a debate, as if the bigoted cis-woman in her mid-50s, who clearly is extremely uninformed about the topic, should be informing us all about how the matter should be settled. This isn’t a debate you fucking herb, it’s a chance for you to learn empathy and acceptance for a…

fuck off 

TERF. It’s important, I guess, even after transitioning, to maintain some shorthand way of instantly dismissing the opinions of women who dare to disagree with you. For people who constantly insist they are real women, trans women sure do bring a lot of male entitlement to the table.

Eat shit.

So um, what about the trans-men who use that term and dismiss terf views? Did they suddenly get male-entitlement when the transitioned? Or did you forget they existed.

She’s not part of the left. Hating trans people isn’t the only reason she campaigned so hard against Corbyn.

MORE *clap emoji* FEMALE *clap emoji* WAR CRIMINALS *clap emoji*

Ignoring her is a luxury, though, because the tweets of a person with a ton of followers and who authored one of the most famous and beloved book series of all time carry a lot of weight and have a lot of reach. That she is using that platform to say hurtful, transphobic things is a problem that not everybody is…

This is a huge mistake. Better to have a few episodes to get used to the new actress portraying Kane then have a new character come in. How is she going to work out of Wayne’s mansion? All the relationships built with her sisters and Luke and her father. I have a hard time coming up with a scenario in which this would…

Okay but why? This makes no sense. This completely throws off the entire show, this character would have no connection with anything. She wouldn’t have the familiar connections to Mary, Jacob, Beth, or Bruce. She wouldn’t have any connection to Wayne Industries or the Crows. And she wouldn’t have any reason to become…

If this is true, just cancel the show. I was tentatively on board for a new actress playing Kate. Soft rebooting the show and basically giving us another season one makes no sense. The season ended on a pretty massive cliffhanger and a bunch of unfulfilled plot threads. You can’t just put a new character in and…

Maybe she regenerates. Lying on the ground face down with a lousy wig like Sylvester McCoy did.

Agreed. Bad choice. Almost every arc from the first season, from Alice’s to Sophie’s to the Dad’s, are going to just sort of abruptly end or at least be wrenched in new direction, but they’re going to keep all the same supporting cast around with a new lead that they’re not designed to, you know, support? Why? This…

We at the network want a Batwoman with brattitude. She’s geeky, she’s “on main.” You’ve heard the expression, “adorkable”? Well, this is a Batwoman who gets “nerdelicious!” Consistently and thoroughly.

They should have her be Violet Paige, aka Mother Panic, from the Young Animal line. Not only is she a lesbian and violent vigilante, she also has an encounter with Batwoman where Batwoman recognizes herself in Violet.

EXCLUSIVE! I know how they’ll write Kate Kane/Ruby Rose out of the show:

I can’t say I’m a fan of this move. Creating a new character, whether whole-cloth or based on a comics character, seems much more painstaking and liable for failure versus just recasting Kate Kane. It’s not like Ruby Rose’s performance was that indelible. 

I hope this is just a trial balloon because it’s very stupid.