The Guardian asks: Why is JK Rowling speaking out now on sex and gender?

This obviously made her a major target, but the latest round was triggered by (I think? - please correct me people who know more!), her posting a picture that has since been deleted that somehow related to an attack on Maria Maclachlan.

Yes that's right, she accidentally copied and pasted a line from a blog or newspaper article describing the attack on MM. She deleted it straight away but the TRAs were outraged by the fact that it referred to the perpetrator as male. Much more outraged than about the actual violent attack on a woman, predictably.

JK deleted and said it was a mistake but defended herself by saying that she wasn't going to bow to "thought policing". And of course the woke mob attacked her. That was the weekend before these tweets and TRAs were all week being horribly abusive and threatening to post dick pics in responses to children sending her photos of their artwork, like the all round noble pillars of the community and dainty ladies they are.

JKR didn't start this recently. There was that memorable tweet that got a lot of people talking late last year. She was supporting a woman who lost her job after coming out as GC, iirc.

More relevant than when JKR "came out as GC" is when the oppressive monitoring of JKR started with trans activists kicking around slurs like toys and waiting for her to make one false move so they could go in hard:

twitter.com/SabotTori/status/922943821167628290

It's been nearly 3 years of JKR knowing that she was being watched carefully by nasty and aggressive people waiting for a chance to attack. Maybe longer.

Also, as mentioned in the article, legislation is being changed now, and lesbians who are fighting for the right to define their sexuality as same sex attraction, not same gender attraction, have been chucked out of Pride. If you don't think Pride is just about rainbows, this seems a very good time to discuss this topic.

I thought it was slightly dangerous timing to sort of "come out as GC" during Pride Month, or do you think she didn't realise or didn't think people would use that against her?

She hasn't just come out as GC.

This has been bubbling along for a while because she has liked particular posts. She then tweeted in support of Maya Forstater a few months ago, asserting that yes, sex does exist. This obviously made her a major target, but the latest round was triggered by (I think? - please correct me people who know more!), her posting a picture that has since been deleted that somehow related to an attack on Maria Maclachlan.

www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/transgender-activist-tara-wolf-fined-150-for-assaulting-exclusionary-radical-feminist-in-hyde-park-a3813856.html. (for reference - this isn't what what she tweeted).

This lead to trans activists claiming that she wasn't safe around children, (she threatened to sue) and targeting the on-line release of her latest story, which is happening at the moment because of lock-down. If you are wondering how they would have targeted the on-line release, have a look at these recent screenshots. I think they were threatening worse. (Again others may be able to provide more info on this).

medium.com/@rebeccarc/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-activists-a-story-in-screenshots-78e01dca68d

There has been a campaign of sustained abuse.

If the Guardian really wanted to explain why this is happening now, they should have mentioned some of this.

This 'she shouldn't have done this in Pride month' bit pisses me right off and I speak as one of the L.

Every fucking month is somehow given to recognition of the T in some way or other, so you're hard pushed to find a space clear to express your views, aren't you?

She didn’t ‘come out’ as GC during pride month - she’s been clear for ages she’s GC

The terminology ‘coming out GC’ is nuts.

We have all been GC until the last 5 minutes since the wokerati have turn truth, science, biology and women’s lived experience into the Spanish Inquisition.

A journalist wanting to inform ppl might have considered linking to information as to what this means.

A journalist wanting to inform people would have been more honest about what TRAs are really worried about:

There is also concern that, when a woman of such influence and popularity as Rowling sets out a critical position, then the wider public, who are largely supportive of transgender people according to most recent British Social Attitudes research unaware of what is going on, may begin to question their fundamental rights wake up to this wholesale attack on women's rights.

Their comments are recorded in Hansard, Lord Tebbit and Ann Widdecombe were two of them - neither of them are the kind of voices anyone on left would have taken much notice of.

It's legislators' job to consider unforeseen consequences or unintended consequences.

Yes, but MPs don't always have much imagination. The legislation is a botch job, but it was written for a small group of transsexuals, not the large group of people currently included under the trans umbrella.

Link.
Scottish government redefines "woman" in law

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3929533-Scottish-Government-redefines-woman-in-law

No comments allowed. A pity.

Tbf the article does say "she felt compelled to write about after reading of the Scottish government’s latest progress towards changing gender recognition laws."

Most people aren't aware of this. A journalist wanting to inform ppl might have considered linking to information as to what this means. I'll try and find the mn thread on it.

Yes BovaryX.

Also, nobody has questioned trans people's fundamental rights.

The conversation has always been about removal of women's fundamental rights via removal provision of sex based services and protections.

The law hasn't changed, but when it was written in 2004 I don't think legislators imagined non-binary identities, people like Pip Bunce/Alex Drummond/Danille Muscato or the concept of 'widening the bandwidth of what it means to be a woman'.

They might not have imagined it, but if how a person presents was important then that should have been specified. Obviously they couldn't, cos it would be really really sexist. It's legislators' job to consider unforeseen consequences or unintended consequences.

I'm not surprised that someone has completely failed to understand the arguments, whether that's because they can't be arsed to engage with them or because they're just going off what someone else told them.

I'm slightly surprised that this level of 'journalism' is on a website of a national newspaper but then maybe I shouldn't be.

Imagine actually believing that feminists are totes into strict gender roles and stereotypes.

And then in small print they just need to live in the new gender for 3 months prior and have a period of reflection for 3 months after.

I think it's shameful that the Guardian doesn't even question what the concept of 'live in the new gender' means.

I think the Guardian could well benefit from posing questions around trans identities more generally.

For example, let's talk about trans-racialism That might be a good place to start in this febrile time of toppling statues and 'taking the knee'.

What? Nothing has changed. It's never mattered what trans women look like, they can identify as trans no matter how feminine they look and surely it's really, genuinely, quite transphobic to claim otherwise?

The law hasn't changed, but when it was written in 2004 I don't think legislators imagined non-binary identities, people like Pip Bunce/Alex Drummond/Danille Muscato or the concept of 'widening the bandwidth of what it means to be a woman'.

Happy for somebody to correct me, but I think it was originally written to protect the right to privacy, so legislators didn't envisage that it would be used by people who obviously still present as their biological sex.

What an unbalanced argument. How disingenuous UK day that self ID has been the case since the GRA was first introduced so she doesn’t know what JKR is worried about! And then in small print they just need to live in the new gender for 3 months prior and have a period of reflection for 3 months after.

How do gc people 'fear that sex is being argued into non-existence' if we consider it the same thing as gender identity?

Also keeps mentioning 'living in their acquired gender' with no explanation as to what this means. What does it mean?

The conclusion of this vapid piece says it all. JKR should not have spoken because her celebrity has amplified this and she could influence people. Critical positions are presented as an existential threat to rights.

There is also concern that, when a woman of such influence and popularity as Rowling sets out a critical position, then the wider public, who are largely supportive of transgender people according to most recent British Social Attitudes research, may begin to question their fundamental rights.

I think the timing has more to do with the fact that she accidentally posted some GC text into a tweet to a young fan who’d drawn a picture last week.

She couldn’t really stay silent about her views after she’s done that could she?

Sorry, that was why the Guardian are suddenly running a story on her now.

Those applying for a gender recognition certificate are entering into a legal agreement to live in their preferred gender for the rest of their life – any breach of this is punishable with up to two years in prison

So when is Freddy McConnell getting locked up then?