I used to be friendly with someone who is trans (MtF) who accused me of mansplaining. This person was angry because they couldn't have a lesbian relationship with their ex-wife and had to advise their daughter of their engagement via text message. The first thing I say to that is, a heterosexual woman is not attracted to women. The other thing I say is, if a 45 year old executive leaves his 42 year old wife and sells his Toyota Aurion and moves into an apartment with his 22 year old secretary and buys a motorbike or a sports coupe, his 42 year old wife can possibly compare herself to his secretary, but if a 45 year old man leaves his heterosexual relationship with his 42 year old wife for another man, she cannot compare herself to him, and the same as the seemingly cisgender male emerges as transgender.

I can see some of JK Rowling's point when she saw some of the language as erasing cisgender women, and perhaps the definition should have been "cisgender women and other people who menstruate."

There is an Australian female politician whom I deplore by the name of Pauline Hanson. She is a far-right winger who opposed marriage equality, and attempted to sabotage discussion on Floyd George by saying that all lives matter (well, unless you're vulnerable, according to her) and sabotaged discussion on domestic violence by saying that society had to stop demonsing men. Nobody has been demonising men! They'd been talking about domestic violence.

AND, after a man by the name of Rohan Baxter doused his wife and kids in petrol and set fire to them after she left him (he had coercively controlled her) Hanson farted that "he may have been pushed too far." HELL, NO RATIONAL PERSON would seek to immolate their family because they left them!

I do not approve of the violence that has been advocated against JK Rowling, just like I would not approve of the same violence against the despicable Hanson.