What has JK Rowling said or done that’s transphobic

I take pride in my ‘transphobia’.

Right. That would have been a distinctly more honest framing of the thread .

If I had said “people with phantom limb pain feel something to be true that isn’t”

But that's the point! It makes no sense at all, to tell someone that the pain they are feeling "isn't true", because pain is a cognitive experience generated in the brain. That's all it is. Their pain is real, because that's the reality of what they are experiencing! We know that the pain doesn't actually derive passively from the limb, because the limb isn't there (which the person is fully aware of themselves), but that doesn't mean the experience of pain is false or imaginary. Likewise the person doesn't need to be deluded or mentally ill to be experiencing/ to know they are experiencing that pain - it doesn't derive from a false belief that they have a limb.

That's precisely why it's a helpful analogy for making sense of gender incongruence.

God you lot are tedious with your out of context selective quotes.

If being pro-women's rights is "transphobic" Being a TRA is woman phobic. Or misogyny

Saying there is no single, universal “way it feels to be a woman” outside of biology, does not mean that an awareness of being female does not exist. That simply does not follow. One is not the logical consequence of the other.

There is no single subjective experience shared by every autistic person, and no one sensation that defines chronic pain or migraine. That does not mean those experiences are unreal.

I am aware that I am a woman, and you are aware that you are a woman. You say that this is simply because you have a female body, and that may accurately describe your own experience. But your conscious awareness of your body and of yourself is not generated passively by your anatomy; it is constructed/ produced by / in the brain.

A trans woman is not claiming: “I know exactly what every woman feels like, and my experience matches theirs.” The claim is: “Despite having male anatomy, I have a persistent, consistent and enduring recognition of myself as female.” That is not circular, it is not meaningless, it's a description of a real, neurocognitive/ psychological experience , that has been reliably observed in population studies across cultures.

If I had said “people with phantom limb pain feel something to be true that isn’t”

But that's the point! It makes no sense at all, to tell someone that the pain they are feeling "isn't true", because pain is a cognitive experience generated in the brain. That's all it is. Their pain is real, because that's the reality of what they are experiencing! We know that the pain doesn't actually derive passively from the limb, because the limb isn't there (which the person is fully aware of themselves), but that doesn't mean the experience of pain is false or imaginary. Likewise the person doesn't need to be deluded or mentally ill to be experiencing/ to know they are experiencing that pain - it doesn't derive from a false belief that they have a limb.

That's precisely why it's a helpful analogy for making sense of gender incongruence.

Saying there is no single, universal “way it feels to be a woman” outside of biology, does not mean that an awareness of being female does not exist. That simply does not follow. One is not the logical consequence of the other.

There is no single subjective experience shared by every autistic person, and no one sensation that defines chronic pain or migraine. That does not mean those experiences are unreal.

I am aware that I am a woman, and you are aware that you are a woman. You say that this is simply because you have a female body, and that may accurately describe your own experience. But your conscious awareness of your body and of yourself is not generated passively by your anatomy; it is constructed/ produced by / in the brain.

A trans woman is not claiming: “I know exactly what every woman feels like, and my experience matches theirs.” The claim is: “Despite having male anatomy, I have a persistent, consistent and enduring recognition of myself as female.” That is not circular, it is not meaningless, it's a description of a real, neurocognitive/ psychological experience , that has been reliably observed in population studies across cultures.

Nice try. They do not have a limb. They are wrong. The person who believes, or feels or whatever word you want to use, that the limb they do have is not theirs is wrong. The man who believes or feels or whatever he is a woman is wrong. The person who believes or feels or whatever that they have no sex is wrong. You are correct. It is a helpful analogy.

If I had said “people with phantom limb pain feel something to be true that isn’t”

But that's the point! It makes no sense at all, to tell someone that the pain they are feeling "isn't true", because pain is a cognitive experience generated in the brain. That's all it is. Their pain is real, because that's the reality of what they are experiencing! We know that the pain doesn't actually derive passively from the limb, because the limb isn't there (which the person is fully aware of themselves), but that doesn't mean the experience of pain is false or imaginary. Likewise the person doesn't need to be deluded or mentally ill to be experiencing/ to know they are experiencing that pain - it doesn't derive from a false belief that they have a limb.

That's precisely why it's a helpful analogy for making sense of gender incongruence.

If someone with an amputated limb says, “I physically still have that limb,” then yes, that claim about their anatomy is false. But if they say, “I vividly experience the limb as still being there,” that is not false. That experience is genuinely occurring in their brain.

Likewise, a trans woman is not necessarily claiming, “I have female reproductive anatomy.” She knows what anatomy she has. The claim is that despite that anatomy, she has a persistent, consistent and enduring recognition of self as female.

So calling her “wrong” only works if you quietly replace the claim she is actually making with a different one — a claim about anatomy.

I think the point is that you can accept the phantom limb pain as real while also accepting that the limb itself is not real/not there.

Just like you can accept the feeling of a man who feels like they're a woman but that doesn't actually make them a woman.

A trans person saying "no I actually am a woman because I feel like one" when they're male is the equivalent of someone with phantom limb pain saying "no I actually do have a leg because I'm feeling pain in it"

If someone with an amputated limb says, “I physically still have that limb,” then yes, that claim about their anatomy is false. But if they say, “I vividly experience the limb as still being there,” that is not false. That experience is genuinely occurring in their brain.

Likewise, a trans woman is not necessarily claiming, “I have female reproductive anatomy.” She knows what anatomy she has. The claim is that despite that anatomy, she has a persistent, consistent and enduring recognition of self as female.

So calling her “wrong” only works if you quietly replace the claim she is actually making with a different one — a claim about anatomy.

Yes — this is much clearer and shows where the actual disagreement lies.

However, what is important to recognise is that a trans woman is not saying, “I literally have female anatomy because I feel female.” She is saying, “Despite having male anatomy, I have a persistent and enduring recognition of myself as female.”

Whether that recognition means she should be described as a woman is a separate conceptual and linguistic argument. It depends, among other things, on whether you define “woman” exclusively by reproductive anatomy.

You cannot settle that argument simply by restating the biological definition you started with and then using it to conclude that trans women are not women. That is the circular reasoning here: the conclusion is already built into the definition.

If someone with an amputated limb says, “I physically still have that limb,” then yes, that claim about their anatomy is false. But if they say, “I vividly experience the limb as still being there,” that is not false. That experience is genuinely occurring in their brain.

Likewise, a trans woman is not necessarily claiming, “I have female reproductive anatomy.” She knows what anatomy she has. The claim is that despite that anatomy, she has a persistent, consistent and enduring recognition of self as female.

So calling her “wrong” only works if you quietly replace the claim she is actually making with a different one — a claim about anatomy.

A TIM can claim he feels female all he likes. He’ll still never be female and never be allowed in female spaces. This may make him sad. I don’t care.

No trans women are not claiming that they have female anatomy but they are demanding to be treated as though they do. The fact that they know they don't have female anatomy makes the demands to enter female only spaces even worse than if they were completely convinced they had female anatomy.

Personally I would feel arrogant asserting what’s in anyone else’s mind or disputing their identity. I’m open minded about what we may yet prove scientifically and how other individuals experience life.

However I don’t think it does or should makes a difference in any practical sense to public life. Single sex spaces and adjustments have always been based on the material reality of the recognition of the two types of biological person, with different needs and risk profiles.

The female individual has different biological characteristics and needs - and other needs flowing from that - to the male. Their biology means that eg they don’t just use toilets for waste but for menstruation, miscarriage, menopausal flooding, pregnancy sickness and the greater incidence of bowel and bladder disorders and digestive issues that arise in females due to biology. They take longer in the loo, undress more, and are more likely to have small children to cater for.

Males carry out 98 per cent of violent crime and all rape. The overwhelming majority of females will have experienced sexual harassment of some kind in the period from adolescence onwards, virtually always from the male class.

For hundreds of years, the sexes have been split for these reasons and for longstanding cultural and religious reasons when undressed etc. Therefore it makes sense for society to protect places where females are vulnerable or incapacitated for their safety, privacy and dignity e.g . hospital wards, prisons, changing rooms. This is necessary for the wellbeing of the majority.

Biology is also the key determinant in sporting prowess and success in most - not all, but many - feats of strength and sporting prowess This has always been recognised until very recently by separate categories for the sexes in sport.

My heart goes out to individuals who don’t fit into neat categories. I can feel empathy because I think there are few of us who haven’t felt something in the same universe (obviously not the same or as severe) at some point in our lives. But a society that doesn’t recognise the reality of the biological separation of the sexes and the safety and privacy needs of females is deluded and rotten. We have to run public life for the greatest good of the greatest number. That doesn’t mean not recognising the needs of the minority and trying to protect them from harm - but that can’t be at the expense of the valid reasons for the sex differential.

I don’t care

Yes you have made it very clear how you feel. I hear you and I am not here to dispute that.

My heart goes out to individuals who don’t fit into neat categories. I can feel empathy because I think there are few of us who haven’t felt something in the same universe (obviously not the same or as severe) at some point in our lives.

❤

Yes — this is much clearer and shows where the actual disagreement lies.

However, what is important to recognise is that a trans woman is not saying, “I literally have female anatomy because I feel female.” She is saying, “Despite having male anatomy, I have a persistent and enduring recognition of myself as female.”

Whether that recognition means she should be described as a woman is a separate conceptual and linguistic argument. It depends, among other things, on whether you define “woman” exclusively by reproductive anatomy.

You cannot settle that argument simply by restating the biological definition you started with and then using it to conclude that trans women are not women. That is the circular reasoning here: the conclusion is already built into the definition.

My heart goes out to individuals who don’t fit into neat categories. I can feel empathy because I think there are few of us who haven’t felt something in the same universe (obviously not the same or as severe) at some point in our lives.

❤