Scared I will lose my best friend of many years ...

She's joined a cult as far as I'm concerned. All of my friends are GC as far as I know, thank goodness.

I've known people in cults, or cult-like groups. I was once in a spiritual group that seemed to be growing cultish characteristics. I left, as did many of close friends -- but many other close friends stayed.
I always remained friends with the ones who stayed. We could always talk, just avoided certain topics. There was never any hatred or loss of friendship. I still visit one of them occasionally, or write her, or meet up (she lives quite far away). There is a level of love that cannot be disturbed, despute differences of opinion.

The difference between this and all the other well-known cults (Moonies, Osho, Jim Jones etc) is that there is not a charismatic leader. A charismatic leader, usually a man, who can speak boldly and with supreme confidence, and convince others of his leadership, and his wisdom and that he is RIGHT, is, to me, the main danger of a cult. It's really hard to pull oneself away from such a person.

The really dangerous thing about the TRA cult is that there is no leader. No one identifiable person (man) at the head who is determining the doctrine and the direction. It seems to be more a secret consortium hiding in the background. That is the scariest thing of all. I can well understand how a single powerful person can draw less confident people into a truth-denying web. But this thing is so -- so vague, so leaderless, so out there hanging in space.

It scares me that sensible people can fall for an ideology not taught by an identifiable leader. The latter, I can understand. Some people are really hypnotic and have a powerful magnetism. I've seen it myself. I just don't get this -- this thing.

How can one deny biological sex, when it is right out there in front of our eyes?

It really is like drinking the Koolaid, when Koolaid is not an actual drink but a set of convictions that won't be budged, however ridiculous they are; beliefs that are totally new and would never have been accepted as recently as five years ago. How can this happen?

Well, the fundamental difference in opinion is that she believes TWAW and I don't. She couldn't see why it really mattered if someone identified as female, what difference it made to her. She felt that the camp of womanhood was big enough to include everyone. That womanhood is difficult to define and she might in fact have more in common with a transwoman than a Sudanese refugee.

Would she have more in common with a Sudanese refugee woman or a Sudanese refugee transwoman, though?

Without an objective definition of 'woman', it all becomes meaningless. You can't write laws to protect women's rights if you can't define what a woman is.

It has absolutely nothing to do with how nice a particular transwoman may or may not be.

Quixote9 you nailed it.

Quixote9 - excellent post.

Well, the fundamental difference in opinion is that she believes TWAW and I don't. She couldn't see why it really mattered if someone identified as female, what difference it made to her. She felt that the camp of womanhood was big enough to include everyone. That womanhood is difficult to define and she might in fact have more in common with a transwoman than a Sudanese refugee.
She couldn't understand why JKR had used her platform to campaign against a vulnerable group.
That people do not come out as transgender unless they absolutely have to (rather than for nefarious reasons)
That of course a small minority will masquerade as transgender but we mustn't use this against genuine transpeople who are the underdog, the downtrodden - the sort of people my friend and I have always championed - and who suffer more for different reasons than the average woman in the UK.
And she said that yes, there are parallels with the resistance to gay rights.
We have always been on the same page on human rights and so this conversation was interesting (and troubling) She did concede that there were issues with womans sport and children transitioning too young.

A few commenters have mentioned differences of opinion. This really isn't that. On one hand you have women's foundational right to physical safety (I mean, you can kill in self-defense, there's no right more basic than physical safety), as well as determining who's in their group (which all other groups get). On the other side are people who would like validation.

The degree to which we should be providing validation is a difference of opinion. Disregarding basic rights is a lot more than that. That's why there are usually criminal penalties attached to it.

This is the giveaway as to what's going on here: "
The thing that really struck a nerve with my friend was asking her whether she thought lesbians who didn’t want to date a person with physically male body were transphobic. Likewise gay men not wanting to date female-bodied people. While she initially began talking about tolerance, when I pointed out the homophobia, it suddenly dawned on her that this was plain wrong. "

When it affects gay sexuality the wrongness of erasing sex becomes more obvious to people. Erasing women's sex is invisible.

Just as women's basic rights somehow don't register. The simple reason is that women really don't register as actual human beings. Worrying about their fear or pain or dignity or desires when anyone else is involved (i.e. a man, since that's the only alternative) would be like putting the convenience of sheep ahead of commuters' need for a new road. Ridiculous. Unthinkable, meaning people just can't even think it. Certainly, you wouldn't want to be gratuitously mean to sheep for no reason. But they're not even on the map when the needs of actual people are in question.

Just look slowly and in detail at the people insisting on TWAW and "kindness" and the safety of transwomen (at the expense of women dealing with predatory men). The bit in parentheses isn't even on the map. Because women aren't.

I'm in this situation with my 23 year old daughter and it breaks my heart. She's living here with us while she's furloughed and, knowing her as I thought I did, I happily mentioned I'd emailed JKR in support and had received a lovely acknowledgement from her office. DD had a hissy fit, said JKR was 'vile', TWAW, and stormed out of the room. We're both making an effort to get along, but I just can't see her in the same light anymore. She's joined a cult as far as I'm concerned. All of my friends are GC as far as I know, thank goodness.

I share your concerns, @Bobkitten.

If she is open to it, I might try questioning my friend about the logical endpoint of the statement TWAW. Is it completely unqualified? If not, what are those qualifications? When does the statement run out of steam?

So for instance, let's say there is a clinical trial for a new Covid treatment. If a trans woman is a participant in the trial - let's say one who is not taking any hormonal interventions and who has not had any other medical procedures - should she be recorded as female or male?

Covid is interesting, as there seems to be a pronounced sex-based difference in mortality - but as many have joked, identifying as a woman is unlikely to help.

This is actually part of a bigger issue for women, as we have often been excluded from medical trials and research. This means a lot of medical information - clinical indications, side effects of drugs, etc - is based on men. For a recent example, look up heart attack, where it has been suggested that women experience certain symptoms more so than men (and write off these symptoms as flu).

There are numerous other examples you could give. If someone requests a female practitioner to perform a cervical smear, is it ok if any current or former penis-bearing person performs the test, so long as that person identifies as a woman? Should anyone who self-identifies as a woman be able to compete in women's sport?

It concerns me that people who proclaim TWAW rarely address any specific points about sports, medicine, etc. Thinking about the response to JK Rowling's thoughtful essay, there were many who accused Rowling of hate speech, and some who identified minor issues (such as a slight factual inaccuracy in the description of the Maya Forstater case), but no-one really addressed the essence of Rowling's concern. The more I read and think, the more hardened I become in my views, because the other side doesn't have a case, it just has assertions.

Cheezy what did they say that made you question your stance?

Cheezy, I know the feeling. Most of us are kind people, we want to ‘check our privilege’ and try to imagine what it’s like to feel we’re in the wrong body and be desperate to be accepted for what we’d like to be.

The nearest experience I can draw on in my own life is a period of infertility where all my friends were having babies and I could think of nothing else, feeling depressed and barren, especially around my period.

But, I acknowledged I had a choice in my attitude, I could get angry, resentful and avoid my friends, or I could see that they were struggling too in their own ways, newborns with reflux or older ones having meltdowns. So instead I bought nice gifts and offered to bring meals and provide childcare for a few hours off. It was hard, but it was not their fault and bitterness was not good for me either, it takes a village to raise a child etc.

I see this kind of behaviour in people like Fionne Orlander who does not seem to hate women. Who acknowledges the needs specific to the female sex.

The aggressive TRAs who think their womxnhood takes precedence and women’s biological needs are irrelevant and transphobic have completely lost any sense of empathy beyond themselves. You can’t reason with this. There are lots of sensible conversations to be had to solve the trans rights issues If women were at least considered in the conversation or #bekind wasn’t completely one sided.

When campaigns to protect extremely vulnerable teenage girls from FGM are shut down as transphobic and rats are nailed to the door of dv shelters, it makes me feel that reasonable, understanding debate is impossible.

I am now not sure that we’re on the right side of history

There's a saying that history is generally written by the victors!

If you are on the wrong side then logically that puts rape & death threats against women, porn posted at children, rapists in women's prisons and the dismantling of female sport on the 'right' side.

I had a similar lengthy conversation with a very old dear friend, who is also sensible and compassionate.

It was the first conversation I’ve had ‘in real life’ about these issues and it’s really made me question my stance.

I am now not sure that we’re on the right side of history. I really worry that, deep down, I do harbour some anti-transgender prejudices.

It seems crazy that people are losing life long friends for knowing biology is real and women exist in our own right.

If ten years ago OP you had said to your friend 'one day we will fall out because you will no longer believe biological sex is real and women are female' she would probably have asked you if you felt okay and needed to see a Dr.

@Bobkitten If you're both able to have a reasonable conversation about this then I wouldnt go in too strong. I have a friend that we can discuss this while coming to different conclusions. I just pass on info when I see something well argued and reasonable.

But I would really endorse this:
*I take it she's actually read JKRs essay then?

You have checked?*

My friend had opinions on the essay but when I checked (as she wasn't making much sense) she hadn't!

Tonight I would stick to the safeguarding of young trans kids and of women and girls. That's what is important.

I take it she's actually read JKRs essay then?

You have checked?

If you add 'why do you think that it is fair and safe for transwomen to participate in women's sport' you might also get a lightbulb moment. If you read up on the research beforehand. Here are a few links to help get you started if you have not come across them before. The link from Dr Hilton has been submitted for publication in a journal and awaiting publication. However, the research behind that report is 11 already peer reviewed studies.

www.preprints.org/manuscript/202005.0226/v1
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-51434749
news.ki.se/increased-performance-in-female-athletes-after-testosterone-supplementation

It is very hard to argue with the safety issue when you bring up people like Fallon Fox and the transwoman rugby player who talked about playing against women like 'folding a deck chair'.

I remember there was an article about people in space travel and it said that women make better astronauts (more collaborative, get along better, and won’t end up trying to shove each other out of the air lock).

At the time I did wonder - if it was actually a biology thing (ie of males were more likely to explode once their left the earth’s atmosphere) would many of these ‘TWAW’ people take that risk?

It's just part of the polarising shift in public discourse that has arisen in the past 20 years. There's no room for nuance, or complexity. Everything is "either ... or". Black/white. Up/down. In/out. Left/Right. Good/Bad. If you are one thing then you are not the other.

It's an absolute godsend for the right wing authoritarian (generally real male) minority, as it basically has ensured that everyone that should be hating them and holding them to account is now engaged in an internecine war unto death. In fact, it's serving them so well, it's hard not to believe it was deliberately engineered.

I was just reading Jenn Smith this morning on facebook and he says that only 1.5% of transwomen go the full hog with surgery.

That's the kind of number I was expecting. Whenever I see someone post that 80% of transwoman don't have the surgery I smile and shake my head at how conservative that figure is. There are supposedly over 100,000 transwoman in the UK and in the past 10 years there have been a few thousand gender reassignment surgeries carried out in the UK or for UK people abroad.

As in the case of the Israel/Palestine debate, I find it’s easier to stand for a principle rather than a side. So that means I’d be inclined to condemn Palestinian terrorist as well as Israeli territorial aggression FOR THE SAME REASON.

People have this childlike view of often quite complex issues, so they try and figure out which “side” is right pick it and demonise the opposition. It’s precisely this kind of thinking that is so tribal and dangerous when left unchecked.

I lost one too one. Weirdly someone obsessed with Rowling and the Harry Potter universe. Very intelligent.

She had no coherent arguments to counter mine. Gave me all the bullshit fake stats about transwomen being murdered every day, everywhere! I asked for proof. She refused to even do basic fact checks.

For adults to stop being friends with you because of a difference in opinion is pathetic.