What has JK Rowling said or done that’s transphobic

Yes and the test for whether someone is trans, is whether they recognise themselves to be other than the sex they were assigned at birth. There are actual psychological tests for this.

My sexed body is my material reality. My brain is part of my body, influenced by the complex relationship between the body’s hormones, brain chemistry etc etc. People cannot “perceive” themselves into a different material reality. What does “recognising one’s sex” even mean? You are either a sex or you are not.

No — because you are still assuming that recognising oneself as female must either be reducible to anatomy, or else it must depend on access to some universal “female feeling”. But those are not the only possibilities, and both models fail to account for what trans people actually report experiencing.

The existence of no single, universal way to “feel female” does not mean that a person cannot have a stable internal recognition of themselves as female. Nor does that recognition have to be based on either sexist stereotypes or physical anatomy.

You are treating the absence of a simple external frame of reference as proof that the experience cannot be real. But that conclusion does not follow at all. That's not how mental/ cognitive processes work. You can have a stable sense of something without possessing an external measuring stick for it. For example, you can recognise that a particular body part feels like “yours”, that a movement feels natural or alien, or that you are anxious, without comparing yourself against some universal template of how everyone else experiences those things.

I'm sure that sounded very good in your head - but it isn't the case. To be gay is to be - as unverifiable as that is. To be trans is the same level of unverifiable. No need to change words or meanings - it just is.

Correct. Your sexed body is material reality, and your brain is part of that material reality too. Nobody is suggesting that a person can “perceive” their anatomy into being different anatomy.

“Recognising one’s sex” means exactly what it sounds like: knowing oneself to be male or female. For most people that recognition corresponds completely unremarkably with their anatomy, so they have little reason ever to think about it.

For a trans person, those things do not align. A trans woman can be perfectly aware that she was born with male sexual anatomy while nevertheless recognising herself as female. She is not deluded that she has ovaries or XX chromosomes, nor is she thinking her body into a different physical state.

The interesting question is why the brain’s representation of the self can sometimes be incongruent with sexual anatomy. Simply replying “that’s impossible because anatomy” is completely circular and also demonstrably false.

Correct. Your sexed body is material reality, and your brain is part of that material reality too. Nobody is suggesting that a person can “perceive” their anatomy into being different anatomy.

“Recognising one’s sex” means exactly what it sounds like: knowing oneself to be male or female. For most people that recognition corresponds completely unremarkably with their anatomy, so they have little reason ever to think about it.

For a trans person, those things do not align. A trans woman can be perfectly aware that she was born with male sexual anatomy while nevertheless recognising herself as female. She is not deluded that she has ovaries or XX chromosomes, nor is she thinking her body into a different physical state.

The interesting question is why the brain’s representation of the self can sometimes be incongruent with sexual anatomy. Simply replying “that’s impossible because anatomy” is completely circular and also demonstrably false.

Homosexuality is real. Being trans is real.

you are right - you can have a stable internal recognition of something... without that something being fact

people can have a stable internal recognition that they are napoleon bonaparte or God or some other (usually powerful dictator) - society recognises that for something we call delusion, or mental health issues (mental illness as it used to be) and such people if not able to be stabilised with drugs are locked up...

bearing in mind that every 'trans woman' is born a man and remains a man - they will have had plenty of opportunity to study their genitals and to know that their anatomy is male - so to have alongside that a 'stable internal recognition' of something totally the opposite has to be a mental health issue - it can be nothing else because it is not based on fact.

So - yes, I would agree there are those who genuinely are born men, remain men, but somehow are psychologically convinced that they are women - but we don't treat that in society by also all pretending they are women - but by treating the mental health issues that cause that belief...

of course there are then others who pretend to be women for more nefarious reasons, and those we need to call out and deal with in other ways...

You are still treating gender identity as though it were a false factual proposition, and that is the mistake.

A delusion is a false belief about reality — “I am Napoleon Bonaparte”, “the government has implanted a chip in my head”, and so on. A trans woman is not usually claiming that she was born with ovaries, XX chromosomes or female reproductive anatomy. She can understand those facts perfectly well.

What differs is her internal recognition of herself as female. That is not the same kind of claim as “I am Napoleon”. It is not a mistaken belief about an external fact; it is a feature of how she experiences and understands herself.

The existence of that internal recognition is itself a fact. It is you who are denying an observed reality when you insist that this experience cannot genuinely exist.

You can insist that anatomy should determine the words “male” and “female” in every possible context, but that is a philosophical and linguistic position. It does not turn a person’s gender identity into a delusion or a mental illness.

That's not what I said. I don't think trans people are delusional, I also don't agree with your understanding of "what they really are".

A trans woman is a person who recognises themselves as female despite having male anatomy.

A trans man is a person who recognises themselves as male despite having female anatomy.

You are still treating gender identity as though it were a false factual proposition, and that is the mistake.

A delusion is a false belief about reality — “I am Napoleon Bonaparte”, “the government has implanted a chip in my head”, and so on. A trans woman is not usually claiming that she was born with ovaries, XX chromosomes or female reproductive anatomy. She can understand those facts perfectly well.

What differs is her internal recognition of herself as female. That is not the same kind of claim as “I am Napoleon”. It is not a mistaken belief about an external fact; it is a feature of how she experiences and understands herself.

The existence of that internal recognition is itself a fact. It is you who are denying an observed reality when you insist that this experience cannot genuinely exist.

You can insist that anatomy should determine the words “male” and “female” in every possible context, but that is a philosophical and linguistic position. It does not turn a person’s gender identity into a delusion or a mental illness.

You are still treating gender identity as though it were a false factual proposition, and that is the mistake.

A delusion is a false belief about reality — “I am Napoleon Bonaparte”, “the government has implanted a chip in my head”, and so on. A trans woman is not usually claiming that she was born with ovaries, XX chromosomes or female reproductive anatomy. She can understand those facts perfectly well.

What differs is her internal recognition of herself as female. That is not the same kind of claim as “I am Napoleon”. It is not a mistaken belief about an external fact; it is a feature of how she experiences and understands herself.

The existence of that internal recognition is itself a fact. It is you who are denying an observed reality when you insist that this experience cannot genuinely exist.

You can insist that anatomy should determine the words “male” and “female” in every possible context, but that is a philosophical and linguistic position. It does not turn a person’s gender identity into a delusion or a mental illness.

I responded to a post that said being trans is unverifiable. I have shown that by that metric being gay is also unverifiable. You and I both know what being gay is - we also both know what being trans is. You not accepting that people can feel that they are a different gender to their biological sex doesn't change that. Something that JK Rowling and I agree on.

You are still treating gender identity as though it were a false factual proposition, and that is the mistake.

A delusion is a false belief about reality — “I am Napoleon Bonaparte”, “the government has implanted a chip in my head”, and so on. A trans woman is not usually claiming that she was born with ovaries, XX chromosomes or female reproductive anatomy. She can understand those facts perfectly well.

What differs is her internal recognition of herself as female. That is not the same kind of claim as “I am Napoleon”. It is not a mistaken belief about an external fact; it is a feature of how she experiences and understands herself.

The existence of that internal recognition is itself a fact. It is you who are denying an observed reality when you insist that this experience cannot genuinely exist.

You can insist that anatomy should determine the words “male” and “female” in every possible context, but that is a philosophical and linguistic position. It does not turn a person’s gender identity into a delusion or a mental illness.

Ok so using the example of another poster, should someone who is black be able to "feel" white and change their race even if they accept that they were born black? Or vice versa

You are still treating gender identity as though it were a false factual proposition, and that is the mistake.

A delusion is a false belief about reality — “I am Napoleon Bonaparte”, “the government has implanted a chip in my head”, and so on. A trans woman is not usually claiming that she was born with ovaries, XX chromosomes or female reproductive anatomy. She can understand those facts perfectly well.

What differs is her internal recognition of herself as female. That is not the same kind of claim as “I am Napoleon”. It is not a mistaken belief about an external fact; it is a feature of how she experiences and understands herself.

The existence of that internal recognition is itself a fact. It is you who are denying an observed reality when you insist that this experience cannot genuinely exist.

You can insist that anatomy should determine the words “male” and “female” in every possible context, but that is a philosophical and linguistic position. It does not turn a person’s gender identity into a delusion or a mental illness.

No, because the analogy does not map across.

There is no recognised medical or developmental phenomenon equivalent to gender dysphoria in which people consistently experience themselves as belonging to a different race from the one associated with their ancestry and social classification.

And race is not biologically organised in the same way as sex. Sex is a biological system tied to reproductive development, anatomy, hormones and chromosomes. Race is a much looser social classification built around ancestry, appearance and history, with boundaries that vary across societies.

So to say that a person can have a stable internal sex/gender identity that is incongruent with their anatomy, does not logically imply that you must also believe that someone can simply "identify into" another race. The comparison only works if you first assume that race and sex identity are the same kind of phenomenon, and there is no good reason to assume that.

No, because the analogy does not map across.

There is no recognised medical or developmental phenomenon equivalent to gender dysphoria in which people consistently experience themselves as belonging to a different race from the one associated with their ancestry and social classification.

And race is not biologically organised in the same way as sex. Sex is a biological system tied to reproductive development, anatomy, hormones and chromosomes. Race is a much looser social classification built around ancestry, appearance and history, with boundaries that vary across societies.

So to say that a person can have a stable internal sex/gender identity that is incongruent with their anatomy, does not logically imply that you must also believe that someone can simply "identify into" another race. The comparison only works if you first assume that race and sex identity are the same kind of phenomenon, and there is no good reason to assume that.

You still haven’t explained how a male would know he “felt female”. What is he using to decide this?

No, because the analogy does not map across.

There is no recognised medical or developmental phenomenon equivalent to gender dysphoria in which people consistently experience themselves as belonging to a different race from the one associated with their ancestry and social classification.

And race is not biologically organised in the same way as sex. Sex is a biological system tied to reproductive development, anatomy, hormones and chromosomes. Race is a much looser social classification built around ancestry, appearance and history, with boundaries that vary across societies.

So to say that a person can have a stable internal sex/gender identity that is incongruent with their anatomy, does not logically imply that you must also believe that someone can simply "identify into" another race. The comparison only works if you first assume that race and sex identity are the same kind of phenomenon, and there is no good reason to assume that.

No — because you are still assuming that recognising oneself as female must either be reducible to anatomy, or else it must depend on access to some universal “female feeling”. But those are not the only possibilities, and both models fail to account for what trans people actually report experiencing.

The existence of no single, universal way to “feel female” does not mean that a person cannot have a stable internal recognition of themselves as female. Nor does that recognition have to be based on either sexist stereotypes or physical anatomy.

You are treating the absence of a simple external frame of reference as proof that the experience cannot be real. But that conclusion does not follow at all. That's not how mental/ cognitive processes work. You can have a stable sense of something without possessing an external measuring stick for it. For example, you can recognise that a particular body part feels like “yours”, that a movement feels natural or alien, or that you are anxious, without comparing yourself against some universal template of how everyone else experiences those things.

There are several high profile (and therefore probably many more not high profile) cases of people who identify as a different race, some having surgery and physical alterations to affirm this.