What has JK Rowling said or done that’s transphobic

the recognition that being trans is a real and legitimate experience

the belief that you are trans - yes, that exists...
being trans - nope, doesn't exist - no-one has ever transitioned from man to woman or v.v. no-one has ever transitioned gender...

that there is such a disconnect tells us that therefore the belief must be a mental health issue - if someone's whole life is dominated by, consumed even by the belief that they are the opposite sex / in the 'wrong' body - then there is a mental health issue at play.

the "othering" and hatred expressed towards trans people on mumsnet is truly disturbing.

'othering' is not a word...

there is no hatred being expressed - in fact the only hatred I have seen in this debate is 100% from the trans-rights-activists who have demonstrated hatred of anyone disagreeing...

as you will see if you read mumsnet for what is actually said, rather than through distorting lenses...

• mumsnet shows huge compassion towards those (especially children) who have gender dysphoria
• there is huge concern about the abuse and safeguarding issues around adults who allow children to be mutilated / abused / put on hormones / have their dysphoria confirmed and augmented...
• there is a depth of understanding of the emotional and mental anguish someone must have to agree to butcher their physiology in pursuit of an un-fulfillable dream or concept

equally

• there is a dislike of lies, distortion and emotional blackmail
• there is an anger that a few men especially should have the arrogance to put women in danger by what they do
• there is a deep frustration at the ideological capture of so many public organisations by those with ulterior motives and agendas
• there is a disagreement with those who come onto the forums and spout nonsense, or who make claims without any attempt to show evidence for those claims
• there is a dislike of the deceit that claims this is a personal issue for a few not affecting anyone else - while pushing every door possible to oppress women and remove their rights.

but nowhere is there a hatred of anyone (hatred is a big word)
and nor is it aimed at 'trans people' because we all know that no-one has ever transitioned, so it is not possible to be a 'trans person' - however, any man who comes on and claims that a man can be a woman, or have a female gender will have themselves neatly packaged and deposited back at the door as spouting ridiculous untruths...

and don't forget, in the arrogance of dismissing all of mumsnet

• not all who argue this way are women, some of us are men - proud to play a small part in helping fight against these lies...
• and also - you are as much a part of mumsnet - so do you include yourself in those generalisations?

Obviously for each condition you need to look at the risks and benefits of different 'treatment' options.

But you might be surprised to learn that one treatment used for phantom-limb pain is essentially to alter the brain’s visual feedback - using mirrors cleverly you can create the visual illusion that the missing limb is present and moving normally, and this can reduce phantom-limb pain in some people.

The point is that treatment does not necessarily consist of repeatedly telling the person, “Your perception is wrong; accept the physical reality.” Sometimes treatment instead works with the brain’s internal representation of the body.

And there's no suggestion we should march around tut tutting about how ridiculous, dishonest, deluded, mentally ill and pretentious people with phantom limbs are!

No it's not necessarily mental illness at all - it's a different type of neurological phenomena. It can be caused, for example, a stroke.

No it's not necessarily mental illness at all - it's a different type of neurological phenomena. It can be caused, for example, a stroke.

It’s wild what you think supports your argument that men should be allowed to force their way into women’s spaces.

there's no suggestion we should march around tut tutting about how ridiculous, dishonest, deluded, mentally ill and pretentious people with phantom limbs are

That’s because they don’t attempt to force everyone in society to affirm their delusions.

Has there been a coherent argument yet?

It’s wild what you think supports your argument that men should be allowed to force their way into women’s spaces.

No one is asking you to affirm a “delusion”. They are asking you to recognise that their neurocognitive experience is real, and to treat them in ways that do not unnecessarily intensify the psychological distress or discordance associated with that experience.

You can disagree about the boundaries of law, medicine, sport or particular sex-based spaces without pretending that the underlying experience itself is fake, delusional or merely attention-seeking.

No one is asking you to affirm a “delusion”. They are asking you to recognise that their neurocognitive experience is real, and to treat them in ways that do not unnecessarily intensify the psychological distress or discordance associated with that experience.

You can disagree about the boundaries of law, medicine, sport or particular sex-based spaces without pretending that the underlying experience itself is fake, delusional or merely attention-seeking.

I think that it supports my argument that the brain can represent the body in ways that do not necessarily map directly onto physical anatomy, and that can happen without the person being deluded or mentally ill. It supports that argument well, and that's all I was using it to claim.

I think that it supports my argument that the brain can represent the body in ways that do not necessarily map directly onto physical anatomy, and that can happen without the person being deluded or mentally ill. It supports that argument well, and that's all I was using it to claim.

Your argument is that someone whose perception has been altered by a brain injury such that they deny material reality… is not deluded?

The only "men" it was aimed at are those "who claim to be women". It was aimed at trans women.

Obviously for each condition you need to look at the risks and benefits of different 'treatment' options.

But you might be surprised to learn that one treatment used for phantom-limb pain is essentially to alter the brain’s visual feedback - using mirrors cleverly you can create the visual illusion that the missing limb is present and moving normally, and this can reduce phantom-limb pain in some people.

The point is that treatment does not necessarily consist of repeatedly telling the person, “Your perception is wrong; accept the physical reality.” Sometimes treatment instead works with the brain’s internal representation of the body.

And there's no suggestion we should march around tut tutting about how ridiculous, dishonest, deluded, mentally ill and pretentious people with phantom limbs are!

Well what you seem to be saying is that TIM are not women, but we should all be nice and pretend they are? Ok. If Rob wants to wear a dress and lipstick, he can. He can just apply his lippy in the men’s toilets. All good with me.

No. I’m saying I disagree with your dogmatic and rather self-important insistence that your preferred use of language is the only objectively legitimate one.

No one is asking you to pretend that trans women were born with female reproductive anatomy. They are not asking you to pretend anything.

They are asking you to recognise that being trans is a real human experience, and to allow language and social treatment to reflect that reality rather than insisting that reproductive anatomy must dictate every aspect of how a person is described and treated in society.

You are perfectly entitled to think birth sex or reproductive anatomy matters in particular contexts. What you are not entitled to do is turn your preferred definition of the word “woman” into an empirical proof that trans people are deluded.

In fact, the pretence runs the other way: you are asking trans people to deny or suppress a deeply rooted aspect of themselves because it does not fit your preferred linguistic framework.

Your argument is that someone whose perception has been altered by a brain injury such that they deny material reality… is not deluded?

I don't have a premium account where I can filter posts, but the point that there must be some external benchmark on which a trans person is assessing themselves as female has been brought up and answered many times, that poster is just not engaging with the responses.

For example -

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.

And I’m refusing their request. Now what?

A specific brain injury is not a mental illness. No. And it's not helpful to think of it that way or assume it can be cured through psychological treatments and therapy, or that it say anything about about the person’s wider mental health or psychological wellbeing.
A neurological injury can alter perception, cognition or body representation without making the person mentally ill in the broader psychiatric sense.

No. I’m saying I disagree with your dogmatic and rather self-important insistence that your preferred use of language is the only objectively legitimate one.

No one is asking you to pretend that trans women were born with female reproductive anatomy. They are not asking you to pretend anything.

They are asking you to recognise that being trans is a real human experience, and to allow language and social treatment to reflect that reality rather than insisting that reproductive anatomy must dictate every aspect of how a person is described and treated in society.

You are perfectly entitled to think birth sex or reproductive anatomy matters in particular contexts. What you are not entitled to do is turn your preferred definition of the word “woman” into an empirical proof that trans people are deluded.

In fact, the pretence runs the other way: you are asking trans people to deny or suppress a deeply rooted aspect of themselves because it does not fit your preferred linguistic framework.

now what?

Now - as they say on mumsnet, YABVU.

(Or something worse, but I wouldn't be allowed to say that.)