Jk Rowling and trans issues... talk to me!

Is birth sex on the outside then?

Cis has no connotation at all of moving or not. It means objects literally, spatially, being on the same side. That's all

On the same side - so your birth sex aligning with you inside then - hence, not trans. On the same side.

"This whole trans hysteria"

Calling women discussing women's rights hysterical, how novel 🙄

"JK Rowling has started a bizarre war"

She neither started anything nor do I believe her intention was war. JKR posted her belief in the importance of biological sex and some of the difficulties around the claim that "trans women are women".

JKR has clearly been aware of and researching the issues for much longer than you have.

JKR didn't start the conversation, not by a long chalk. Women with less power than her have had their meetings to talk about women's rights repeatedly physically attacked. Windows hit with bricks and yobs shouting slurs. So much so that these meetings have to be arranged with great privacy. Meetings that are to discuss women's rights Women who hold the views that people with penises aren't women are regularly and repeatedly doxxed and threatened with graphic threats of rape and violence. Isn't that nice.

I don't think you can define "cis" or "trans" without first defining "man" and "woman", can you? Otherwise one is "having moved or being in the process of moving from a position to another position, where neither position is known" and the other is "remaining or continuing to be in an unknown position."

You can certainly define 'Cis' without reference to men or women because it's got nowt to do with them. Cis has no connotation at all of moving or not. It means objects literally, spatially, being on the same side. That's all.

I'm still waiting for Quaagars (or anyone) to define 'cis' and 'trans'.
Her previous answer (to which I responded.) indicated she didn't understand what Cis actually meant, so maybe unfair to press her for a definition.

I don't think you can define "cis" or "trans" without first defining "man" and "woman", can you? Otherwise one is "having moved or being in the process of moving from a position to another position, where neither position is known" and the other is "remaining or continuing to be in an unknown position."

Why is it so hideous to accept transmen as transmen and transwomen as transwomen?

Actual transphobia.

I don't believe we've ever seen a slightly convincing response to the simple question: 'if trans women are women, how do you define 'woman'.

I'm pretty sure definitions are considered transphobic. I'm still waiting for Quaagars (or anyone) to define 'cis' and 'trans'.

I know a lot of people have said not to engage, but I have found this thread really useful. I have been here since the whole JKR 'thing' earlier this year, and I have learnt so much already - but I find it hard to articulate some of the reasoning a lot of the time. So, thank you to the people who have taken the time to explain things in such a rational and persuasive way - especially in the face of accusations of trans hysteria and transphobia.

Thanks, Errol; I was trying not get even longer and more complicated, And you've nailed it for me.

wish not which

straight is a colloquialism meaning the opposite of a perjorative isn't it? Should we keep using it? Hetero, bi and homo relate specifically to sexual status and are used logically.

Describing someone as 'not trans' is forcing everyone to have a gender identity which only serves to benefit those who which to claim a gender identity. It has no relevance in the discussion of humans. Like clownfish has absolutely no relevance in the discussion of human sex categories but that trope is rolled out forever to indicate that biology is complex.

The term is not fit for purpose and like many of the linguist aspects of 'gender identity' has been repurposed clumsily.

• I think that explains why women on the whole don't like it: it classifies each of them as a member of a subset of what they are, while what they are becomes exclusively for others.

It's worse than that; it defines actual women as a subset of a 'women' that has become undefinable. (And don't blame me if that sentence isn't easily comprehensible!). I don't believe we've ever seen a slightly convincing response to the simple question: 'if trans women are women, how do you define 'woman'.

I've skimmed the thread. I am amazed that PP have to explain yet again the issues and yet again links have to be posted. The OP is lazy. Interestingly, she hasn't checked in for some hours.

Anyway, I don't know any transpeople but I do know plenty of gay and lesbian people through work. The impression I get from the OP is s/he is a bigot towards my LGB friends...the phrase "gay women" is blatantly bigoted. S/he also sounds like a very privileged person who because she has no experience of something, says it doesn't exist. Her language reveals she claims to be a feminist, but by not defending lesbians and saying womens' experiences are false, she is a blatant misogynist.

The mental gymnastics you must be achieving to go from highlighting India's rape crisis as an area feminist is not concerned about (we are) to your next and last post highlighting that you understand the issue of prisons but as proportionally women are not in prison you dont get why we're concerned.

Do you not see how strange your thought process is?

By that terminology trans women are women; women who were born with female genitalia and have always been first girls and then women are cis women.

I think that explains why women on the whole don't like it: it classifies each of them as a member of a subset of what they are, while what they are becomes exclusively for others.

Gay and lesbian are subsets of a sex so an analogy of cis with those words falls down at that point. Sort of like the difference between a red-head and a human being: red-heads are a subset of human beings, human beings are not a subset of red-heads.

Can you give similar definitions for trans and 'cis'?

How can a transwoman be a woman if they cannot change sex?

Because one of the explicit aims is to sever words from their meanings. It is to subvert the relationship between words and the external reality they describe. It is to pretend that words are mere emphemera, used randomly to describe whatever subjective fantasy dominates the speaker's internal landscape. If you don't submit to the Newspeak dictionary? You must be cancelled.

From what I can gather, just means not trans.

No, cis a technical term which relates to spatial arrangements (eg chemical groups, geographical features). 'Trans' is be used as its counterpart in that context, but is also used in other ways (eg 'transplant, transport'). The use of Cis in relation to sex or gender is a false pairing.

Biology still matters - regardless of identity arguments - in terms of heath issues and in terms of the way that data is collected and analysed.

This is ever more pertinent when dealing with a virus that impacts differentially according to biological sex - not self affirmed gender identity.

How can you analyse sex difference in disease processes if self id is the norm? Aside from women suffering prostate disease/cancer and similar anomalies we need to break from the man as norm in relation to eg heart disease. We can't do this unless sex is recognised as an objective category that is not overwhelmed by subjective priority.