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

Never any comments on the mutilation of children

A poster just pointed out that a Wyoming bill against FGM has been delayed due to activists.

Never any comments on the selling of babies. This is another area where the rights of women are being eroded in the name of fertility equality. Meaning that to provide people with children that they perceive they have the right to have especially created for them, women and their bodies are put at risk.

Never any comments on the violence directed at women. This is one of the first things discussed in the OP.

This thread isn't even about any of those.
Have you actually read this thread?

Oh look, what a surprise, I haven't had an answer to my question. So predictable...

[quote KnightsofColumbusThatHurt]@Quaagars on what basis do you 'accept transwomen as women' if you know that they are biologically male and you can't change sex? How, then, are they women? I don't understand![/quote]
It's a mystery that will never be solved Knights along with the mystery of inside outside birth sex and alignment.

Oh blimey Knights you're not hoping for a definition of 'woman' from a genderist are you?

optimistic

@Quaagars on what basis do you 'accept transwomen as women' if you know that they are biologically male and you can't change sex? How, then, are they women? I don't understand!

I am still waiting to hear why blocking the Wyoming law against female genital mutilation is good for girls.

But maybe they are just an accepted casualty in order to enable children who are too young to vote or to drink legally to have gender reassignment...

As others have stated, the bizarre war on the meaning of the words 'women' and 'girls' (interestingly, there is no similar war about the meaning of the words 'men' and 'boys' as the meaning of those is almost never challenged) was not started by JK Rowling.

It was started roughly a decade ago when woke articles began writing about women as 'egg producers,' 'ovary-havers,' 'menstruators' and 'vulva owners' when female biology could not be avoided in a piece.

When enough women complained about such terms, the woke articles began using 'people' for 'women,' thus turning the female body into a gender-neutral thing.

All those terms started the bizarre war on words. They replaced 'women' and even 'females' because trans activists argued

a) that trans women, too, are both women and females so that even the latter term could not be applied to biological aspects of the female body

and b) that because some female-bodied people have identified out of the group 'women' into trans men or, later, into nonbinary people, talking about the female body as if it was female excluded them.

If you think about those changes more carefully, however, they are not really just about attempts to be inclusive (ironically, the intent is to destabilise the concept of 'woman' as the term 'inclusive' comes from queer theory and aims to destabilise, not to create fairness):

Once it is accepted that the female body is not particularly linked to having the gender 'woman' or even to the concept 'female,' then what a woman is and what female is become undefined. All women who accept for themselves the gender label 'woman' because they live in a female body are suddenly stripped of their own gender identities!

And I think that is the angle Rowling was using in her tweet about how 'menstruators' is used. For her (and for millions of others) being a woman is an experience which is very much embodied.

This is a superbly informative thread for all the thousands of lurkers intrigued by this board.

"Yep, I thought so too but it's the way it's insinuated that anyone who doesn't always agree with "GC" must think that.
When nobody's said that at all apart from a GC poster!"

Rather like the comment about Section 28 actually made by a trans ally as a joke, but used ever since as an example of how "transphobic" it's supposed to be on Mumsnet.

I thought women were a sort of formless void? In which case how do we have an inside or an outside to align?

I guess I am never going to get an answer to what outside birth sex doesn't align with inside that determines trans, yet another unanswered question to add to my ever growing list.

Ffs, this is MumsNet, we teach kids of both sexes to say please and thank you, not make demands

Yes, completely agree with you we should say please, thank you, and basic good manners and being nice.
Just pointing out the absolutely hypocritical stance and double standards when it's "GC" posters saying that.

It doesn't mean I'm suddenly not a woman anymore, or a subset if woman. I still am one, it's not magically been taken away from me.

See this is the problem with people not understanding language.

I am part of the subset of women who are vegetarian. Also part of the sunset who are short.

We are all part of many sunsets of women, but our women's bodies are what unites us into a group that doesn't include men.

If you "accept transwomen as women" you are creating a new group called women made up of women and men. The thing that unites women and men is that they are both humans. There is no common factor that unites women and transwomen that also excludes men. So what you have done is change the word woman to mean person. This isn't helpful at all when people want to talk about women.

I meant accepting that they're women doesn't mean I automatically become less of one
It does mean that you have forgotten the definition of 'woman', though.

I haven't.

(The context was specifically 'if you ask nicely, someone may be willing to use their valuable time to assist you')

Ask nicely, what do I have to be nice now? I thought that was sometimes frowned on, that we don't have to be nice on here?

It's basic good manners to 'ask nicely' if you want someone to spend time doing something for you. That's got nothing to do with women being expected to submit nicely to their rights being taken away, to women being expected to be kind to abusers etc.

Ffs, this is MumsNet, we teach kids of both sexes to say please and thank you, not make demands.

You accept that no-one can change sex, woman refers to an adult human female therefore a transwoman is not a woman as they are of the male sex.

Transwomen are transwomen on what basis are they women and why the determination to say they are?

Seeing as the OP accused JKR of starting a war and the women on here not concentrating enough on the causes that she deems more worthy, it is entirely relevant.

OK, fair enough could quite easily have been to OP (only house will know that really) but whoever it was aimed at, seeing as we're both disagreeing with some "GC" views on here it 'was still telling to go and read and if we ask nicely enough someone might help us "see" better.
Who it was to is irrelevant.