JK Rowling, is she being unreasonable? YABU = don't agree with JK, YANBU = do agree with JK **MNHQ edited wonky title**

[Thepigeonsarecoming]

Massive social media debate going on with JK stating “erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives”

Wanted to know outside the feminist board how people feel. Is she being unreasonable in being against transgender people identifying as they feel as in sex. Or is this the normal view and trans gender people should accept they are male/female dependant on their birth?

[Thepigeonsarecoming]

Ok read that back, not completely clear!! 😂

YABU = don’t agree with JK

YANBU = do agree with JK

[TreeTopTim]

She isn't against transgender people she is pro women. There is a difference. She, like many other people, is just sick of women's rights being eroded.

[ItsLateHumpty]

Is she being unreasonable in being against transgender people identifying as they feel as in sex.

But this isn’t what she said, and she isn’t against transgender people. I voted YANBU but your OP is not really stating the facts of the what she tweeted.

I totally agree that “erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives“

What she actually tweeted is:

“If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction. If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn’t hate to speak the truth.

The idea that women like me, who’ve been empathetic to trans people for decades, feeling kinship because they’re vulnerable in the same way as women - ie, to male violence - ‘hate’ trans people because they think sex is real and has lived consequences - is a nonsense.

I respect every trans person’s right to live any way that feels authentic and comfortable to them. I’d march with you if you were discriminated against on the basis of being trans. At the same time, my life has been shaped by being female. I do not believe it’s hateful to say so.“

[Thepigeonsarecoming]

@ItsLateHumpty

Is she being unreasonable in being against transgender people identifying as they feel as in sex.

But this isn’t what she said, and she isn’t against transgender people. I voted YANBU but your OP is not really stating the facts of the what she tweeted.

I totally agree that “erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives“

What she actually tweeted is:

“If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction. If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn’t hate to speak the truth.

The idea that women like me, who’ve been empathetic to trans people for decades, feeling kinship because they’re vulnerable in the same way as women - ie, to male violence - ‘hate’ trans people because they think sex is real and has lived consequences - is a nonsense.

I respect every trans person’s right to live any way that feels authentic and comfortable to them. I’d march with you if you were discriminated against on the basis of being trans. At the same time, my life has been shaped by being female. I do not believe it’s hateful to say so.“

It is late Humphrey, I agree with you completely, I was just opening this up for discussion outside the feminist board which receives only a one dimensional answer

[Giespeace]

Well, for one thing, the word is “transgender” and not “transex”. You can go through whatever surgery and hormone treatments science can provide but at the the end of the day you still are what you are in terms of your DNA.
I can’t believe this whole thing kicked off because she said “people who menstruate are called women”.
Why does female biology and experience have to be kicked aside and minimised in order for transwomen to feel they have dignity and respect? Ok, they may well wish they had experienced female puberty and socialisation etc. but they haven’t and can’t. That shouldn’t mean the people who have ie. “women” have to be erased.
I’m with JK all the way on this.

[Thepigeonsarecoming]

@giespeace if medicine/science evolves to allow trans women to experience menstrual bleeding would you then accept them as women? Just wondering where the line in science will stand for you?

[Giespeace]

I woudn’t be surprised if medicine/science isn’t far off creating little mini wombs which will bleed monthly. I think the surgical methods they can use to create vaginas are amazing (if baffling!)
You’re still talking about a person with XY DNA though. That’s their sex.
Amazing as it all is - and I’m glad surgery is available for those who need it - I still don’t think it means they are a woman in the same way that I am a woman. Any more than I could claim to fully inhabit and understand the experiences and physical journey of a transwoman.

[Whichoneofyoudidthat]

[quote Thepigeonsarecoming]@giespeace if medicine/science evolves to allow trans women to experience menstrual bleeding would you then accept them as women? Just wondering where the line in science will stand for you?[/quote]
I’ll answer that. No.

Not that it will happen. That’s just fanciful.

[isabellerossignol]

For me, no amount of medical intervention would make someone a woman if they weren't born female.

It's not about breasts or faux menstrual bleeding if such a thing could be replicated. My skeleton is shaped by being female, my lung capacity, all sorts of things. Yet my brain is just a brain - liking pink and nice handbags isn't a sign of a female brain, it's just a sign of liking pink and nice handbags.

The whole thing is topsy turvy science denial. Denying the physical reality whilst trying to enforce a religious type doctrine on others based on nothing more than feelings.

[Thepigeonsarecoming]

@giespeace surely that’s just evolution though? Unless you believe in Adam and Eve then once upon a time your ancestors were single cell non sexual amoebas? I’m sure they didn’t have an XY gene at that time

[Thepigeonsarecoming]

@isabellerossignol that’s good to know since I was definitely born with a vagina, but I do hate pink, I think it’s a throwback to a bridesmaid outfit! Glad to know it doesn’t define my female brain though 💕

[ItsLateHumpty]

Thepigeonsarecoming

if medicine/science evolves to allow trans women to experience menstrual bleeding would you then accept them as women? Just wondering where the line in science will stand for you?

And also

surely that’s just evolution though? Unless you believe in Adam and Eve then once upon a time your ancestors were single cell non sexual amoebas? I’m sure they didn’t have an XY gene at that time

Man made science ≠ evolution though.

[TehBewilderness]

8th rule of misogyny: Men are whatever men say they are and women are whatever men say they are.

[Thepigeonsarecoming]

@itslatehumpty I accept them as women now. Science as always will catch up

[Langsdestiny]

That isn't what she said though is it.

[Giespeace]

@Thepigeonsarecoming
When evolution evolves to allow men to change their entire biological profile at will to include female DNA, female skeletal and muscular structure, hormones (including the ability to actually menstruate and not just bleed) gestate and feed young, menopause etc. physiology (including coming over to our side in the great office temperature struggle), and are willing to accept all the burdens which come with those things which they probably don’t have a clue about yet, being men, then I may review my position.

[GlendaSugarbeanIsJudgingYou]

In what way could that be considered evolution? Or even remotely related to it?

[ItsLateHumpty]

[quote Thepigeonsarecoming]@itslatehumpty I accept them as women now. Science as always will catch up[/quote]
My last post that you responded to, was quoting two of yours and I was saying that surgery does not equal evolution.

If I read this, your latest response, correctly, are you saying you already believe men can be / are already women, and science will catch up and make it so?

[Thepigeonsarecoming]

@giespeace so you are basing your stance against what men might do? Women can already become pregnant without the need for a male (other than sperm). Why would evolution involve males 😂

[isabellerossignol]

But they need a male for the sperm They might not need sex for pregnancy but they still need a man.

[isabellerossignol]

By sex I obviously mean sexual intercourse!

[Giespeace]

@Thepigeonsarecoming
Of course I’m basing my stance on what men might do. That’s what you asked? Women don’t need to evolve to become women. Women are women.
Are you talking about us becoming a single sex species in a million years time? That’s a whole other discussion and not really relevant to the here and now

[GlendaSugarbeanIsJudgingYou]

Women can already become pregnant without the need for a male (other than sperm), Why would evolution involve males

Erm... What?

Where are ya getting all that sperm from, Pigeon?

[Giespeace]

@Glenda
Presumably science is going to catch up and evolve to make sperm some sort of cash crop, then we can just get on with it without men altogether

[Thepigeonsarecoming]

@GlendaSugarbeanIsJudgingYou

Where are ya getting all that sperm from, Pigeon?

Wow that’s a bit personal. A hi how are you would have been nice first! 😂